UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APEAL BOARD
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021—00602
`
`Patent No. RE45 ,415
`
`Reissued: March 17, 2015
`
`Filed September 28, 2011
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH E. WHITE
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 1
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APEAL BOARD
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021—00602
`
`Patent No. RE45 ,415
`
`Reissued: March 17, 2015
`
`Filed September 28, 2011
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH E. WHITE
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 1
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Qualifications, Experience, Publications ........................................................ 1
`
`Compensation.................................................................................................. 4
`
`Prior Testimony............................................................................................... 4
`
`V. Materials Considered ...................................................................................... 5
`
`VI. Relevant Legal Principles ............................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 6
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................ 7
`
`C. Anticipation Law ................................................................................... 8
`
`VII. Background of the Technology....................................................................... 8
`
`VIII. The ‘415 Patent ............................................................................................... 9
`
`IX. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`Tremblay .............................................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview .................................................................................. 12
`
`Biased Reproduction does not Prove Inherency ...................... 13
`
`B.
`
`Satoh..................................................................................................... 17
`
`- i _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 2
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH E. WHITE
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`1, Ralph E. White, provide the following declaration identifying my
`
`opinions and bases therefore concerning certain issues in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of US. Patent No. RE45,415 (“the ‘415 patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`I am
`
`over the age of twenty one (21) and am competent to provide this report.
`
`I am a
`
`citizen of the United States. I reside in the State of South Carolina and maintain an
`
`office located at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina,
`
`29208.
`
`2.
`
`I am a Professor of Chemical Engineering in the Department of
`
`Chemical Engineering at the University of South Carolina.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Carlson Caspers on behalf of Oxygenator
`
`Water Technologies, Inc (OWT) in the above-captioned matter as an independent
`
`technical expert.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for OWT to review US. Patent Nos.
`
`RE45,415 ( “the ’415 patent”).
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications, Experience, Publications
`
`5.
`
`I have almost fifty years of experience in the field of chemical
`
`engineering with research interests targeted to electrochemical systems,
`
`mathematical modeling, electrolysis, batteries, corrosion, and electrodeposition.
`
`_ 1 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 3
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`6.
`
`In 1971, I graduated with a BS. in Engineering from the University of'
`
`South Carolina. In 1973, I obtained my M.S. in Chemical Engineering from the
`
`University of California at Berkeley. In 1977, I obtained my Ph.D. in Chemical
`
`Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley.
`
`7.
`
`I worked as a Chemical Engineer for Ethyl Corporation in the summer
`
`of 1970, as a Nuclear Engineer for Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the summer of
`
`1971, and as a Research Engineer for Chevron in the summer of 1972. Since
`
`obtaining my Ph.D., I have worked as a consultant for over 15 companies
`
`including Dow Chemical, Boeing, Celgard, and Energizer.
`
`8.
`
`I worked at Texas A&M University from 1977 through 1993, during
`
`which I held the positions of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and
`
`Professor, before serving as the Associate Head of the Department of Chemical
`
`Engineering.
`
`I then moved to the University of South Carolina, where I have been
`
`since 1993. I have held the roles of Chair of the Department of Chemical
`
`Engineering, Director of the Center for Electrochemical Engineering, and Dean of
`
`the College of Engineering and Computing.
`
`I am currently a Professor and
`
`Distinguished Scientist at the University of South Carolina.
`
`9.
`
`I have received numerous honors and awards throughout my career,
`
`including the Battery Division Research Award from The Electrochemical Society,
`
`_ 2 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 4
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`Inc. in 1991, the Best Paper of the Conference at the Fifth Annual Battery
`
`Conference on Applications and Advances in 1990, the E. H. Brockett Professor of
`
`Chemical Engineering honor in 1990, the Scientific Achievement Award by the
`
`American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society in 1999, and several major
`
`awards from The Electrochemical Society (Olin Palladium, Vittorio de Nora, and
`
`Linford).
`
`10.
`
`I am a member of several societies, such as the American Institute of
`
`Chemical Engineers, the National Society of Professional Engineers, The
`
`Electrochemical Society, and the National Association for the Advancement of
`
`Science.
`
`11.
`
`I worked for Dow Chemical as a consultant from 1979 to 1993 on the
`
`electrolysis of brine to produce chlorine gas, hydrogen gas, and aqueous sodium
`
`hydroxide. This work resulted in several publications on this subject. I also served
`
`as a consultant to other companies for the electrolysis of water to produce
`
`hydrogen and oxygen gases.
`
`12.
`
`A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including
`
`publications and a listing of my specialties/expertise and professional activities, is
`
`contained in my curriculum vitae which is attached to the end of this declaration as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 5
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`III. Compensation
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated on an hourly basis at the rate of $400/hour
`
`for my work performed in connection with this proceeding. I have received no
`
`additional compensation for my work in this case, and my compensation does not
`
`depend in any way upon the contents of this report, any testimony I may provide,
`
`or the ultimate outcome of this proceeding.
`
`IV. Prior Testimony
`
`14. During September and December 2020, I provided expert testimony in
`
`the matter of: CERTAIN LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CELLS, BATTERY
`
`MODULES, BATTERY PACKS, COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAIVIE, Investigation No. 337—TA—1 181,
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.
`
`15.
`
`I also served as an expert witness in connection with the following
`
`two inter partes review petitions filed on July 6, 2020, with the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office: SKI Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem, Ltd., Case
`
`Nos. IPR2020-01239 and IPR2020-01240.
`
`16.
`
`From May 2018 to March 2019, I served as an expert Witness in Multz’
`
`Service Technology Solutions Inc. v. Lifeshz'eld LLC, US. District Court for the
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 6
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`Western District of Missouri, Case No. 17-cv-0696-HFS, which involved a dispute
`
`involving lithium—ion battery defects in a tablet computer.
`
`V. Materials Considered
`
`17. My technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions are based on my
`
`experience and other qualifications discussed above, as well as my study of
`
`relevant materials.
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the '415 patent specification,
`
`claims, and prosecution history.
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review ("Petition") in the above referenced Case IPR2021-00602, as well as the
`
`Exhibits filed therewith.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar With pages 60-64, 252-25 7, 261-280
`
`from the book entitled Fundamentals of Electrochemistry Second Edition by V.S.
`
`Bagotsky (2006) (“Fundamentals of Electrochemistry”), which I understand will
`
`be filed as an Exhibit in these IPR proceedings.
`
`21.
`
`I provided a declaration related to my understanding of a few claim
`
`terms in the district court proceedings related to the ’415 patent. I identified the
`
`materials I considered when coming to my understanding of those claim terms in
`
`that declaration that was filed in the district court proceeding.
`
`_ 5 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 7
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`VI. Relevant Legal Principles
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) is a person who is presumed to have complete knowledge of the relevant
`
`prior art and who would think along the lines of conventional wisdom in that art.
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary skill and creativity, but does not
`
`have extraordinary skill, e.g., is not an expert. I have been informed that factors to
`
`consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the educational
`
`level of workers in the field, the types of problems addressed in the art, prior-art
`
`solutions to such problems, how quickly innovations are made, and the complexity
`
`of the technology.
`
`23.
`
`The ‘415 patent relates to technology for oxygenating water by
`
`creating microbubbles and/or nanobubbles using electrolysis. Specifically, the ‘415
`
`patent is directed to electrolytic processes and structures that are efficient and
`
`effective at creating microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen in the water.
`
`Petitioner has suggested that a POSA would have had a degree in chemistry,
`
`chemical engineering, or a similar discipline and at least two years of experience
`
`with electrolysis systems. I have been instructed to apply this level of ordinary
`
`skill for purposes of my analysis in this declaration.
`
`_ 6 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 8
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR202 1 -00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`24.
`
`Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the
`
`present tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSA
`
`would have known at the time of the invention.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that the claim terms should be construed as they
`
`would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention
`
`who is deemed to have read the intrinsic record. For the purpose of this
`
`declaration, I will assume that the applicable date of the invention for the Patents is
`
`sometime between February 2002 and December 2003. My testimony about the
`
`below claim terms would not change if the date of invention was at the beginning
`
`or end of this two year time period. To be clear, I offer no opinion about what date
`
`the Patents are entitled to for their date of invention.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that the proper context for construing the
`
`meaning of claim terms is the language of claims, the disclosure in the patent, and
`
`pertinent statements in the relevant prosecution history.
`
`I understand that in
`
`construing claim terms, the most important evidence is intrinsic, which includes
`
`the claims themselves, the written description of the patent, and the prosecution
`
`history.
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
` 9
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,41 5
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation Law
`
`27.
`
`In this declaration I have been instructed by counsel on the law
`
`regarding anticipation and inherency.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid for anticipation if, and only
`
`if, a single reference discloses each and every limitation of a claim. I understand
`
`that the disclosure in the reference can be either explicit or inherent. I understand
`
`that an aspect of a claim that is not explicitly disclosed in a reference can be found
`
`inherent only if that aspect is considered necessarily and inevitably present in the
`
`teachings of the reference. I understand that probabilities or likelihoods of an
`
`aspect being present are not sufficient 'to establish inherency. I also understand that
`
`it is the Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an
`
`aspect not explicitly disclosed is otherwise necessarily and invariably present.
`
`VII. Background of the Technology
`
`29.
`
`Electrolysis is the process of chemical decomposition produced by
`
`passing an electric current through a liquid or solution containing ions.
`
`30. Many variables are considered in design of electrolysis processes and
`
`systems. The number of electrodes and their size, material, coatings, shape, and
`
`relative positions within the electrolytic cell have significant affects on the
`
`electrolytic process. Other relevant variables that can significantly affect the
`
`10
`
`_ 3 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`10
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,41 5
`
`electrolytic process include the flow rate, current density, temperature, and
`
`electrolyte composition.
`
`31.
`
`The electrolysis of water to create oxygen bubbles is affected by each
`
`of these variables. Specifically, the size of oxygen bubbles is affected by, at least,
`
`the following physical and/or chemical phenomenon: (1) the rate of electrolysis,
`
`(2) the specific chemistry caused by the electrolysis, (3) the force required to
`
`detach the bubbles from the electrodes, and (4) the force applied to the bubble as
`
`the water flows by the electrodes.
`
`32.
`
`Each of the variables listed in paragraph 30 above affect one or more
`
`of the physical and/or chemical phenomenon listed in paragraph 31. The way these
`
`variables each affect the physical and/or chemical phenomenon is described in
`
`more detail below. The Fundamentals of Electrochemistry textbook discusses
`
`some of the factors that can affect the outcome of electrolysis reactions.
`
`VIII. The ‘415 Patent
`
`33.
`
`The ‘415 patent is directed to the use of the electrolysis of water to
`
`increase the oxygenation of water through the creation of microbubbles and
`
`nanobubbles of oxygen. Oxygenation of water refers to a process in which the
`
`amount of oxygen dissolved in water is artificially increased. Increasing the
`
`amount of oxygen dissolved in water can be desirable to, for example, provide
`
`11
`
`_ 9 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`11
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`additional oxygen for plants or animals or as a means to break down organic
`
`pollutants in the water. The common way of oxygenating water at the time of the
`
`invention was by blowing compressed air or oxygen gas into the water.
`
`34.
`
`Independent claim 13 of the ‘415 patent is directed to a “method for
`
`producing an oxygenated aqueous composition”. Claim 13 recites several steps
`
`included in the process. At a high level, the steps include “flowing water
`
`through an electrolysis emitter”, causing electricity to flow
`
`to the electrodes”,
`
`and “producing
`
`a suspension comprising oxygen microbubbles and nanobubbles
`
`in the water”.
`
`35.
`
`The patent specification explains this process and describes that the
`
`distance between the anode and cathode used for electrolysis affects whether the
`
`oxygen formed at the anode is in microbubble and nanobubble form. The
`
`specification calls this distance the “critical distance” and defines the term “critical
`
`distance” to mean “the distance separating the anode and cathode at which evolved
`
`oxygen forms microbubbles and nanobubbles”. The specification explains that the
`
`critical distance ranges from 0.005 to 0.140 inches and the preferred critical
`
`distance is from 0.045 to 0.060 inches. The specification goes on to describe
`
`several example processes for creating micro and nanobubbles by using an oxygen
`
`12
`
`_ 10 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`12
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45 ,415
`
`emitter having specific electrode configurations and spacings, and by applying
`
`specific voltages, active electrode areas, currents, and flow rates of water thereto.
`
`36. My review of the prosecution history indicates that the method of
`
`claim 13 was determined to be patentable because the prior art did not disclose or
`
`suggest a method of producing an oxygenated aqueous composition involving all
`
`the claimed steps and process parameters. The Examiner’s conclusion was not
`
`based solely on the claimed critical distance between the electrodes, but the
`
`claimed combination of process parameters. The Examiner stated:
`
`[t]he 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
`
`0005-0140, the voltage maximum of about 28.3 volts, and 13 or less
`
`amperages 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 at 25.)
`
`37. During prosecution, the Examiner provided additional indications that
`
`the specific parameters of the process, and not just the electrode spacing, was
`
`important in finding the claim patentable. For example, the Examiner stated:
`
`[t]he formation of bubbles is a function of flow rates, temperatures,
`
`liquid viscosity, voltage, or current output of the electrodes etc., and
`
`not just of electrode spacing. (Id. at 169.)
`_ 11 _
`
`13
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`13
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`38. A POSA would not read either the patent specification or the
`
`prosecution history to suggest that every electrolysis system that includes
`
`electrodes separated by the “critical distance” would create microbubbles and
`
`nanobubbles. Instead, the patent states that the distance between the anode and a
`
`cathode is one critical parameter for producing micro and nanobubbles, but it is not
`
`the only parameter that impacts the outcome of the electrolytic process. This
`
`would be straightforward to a POSA who reviewed the specification and
`
`prosecution history, as they would know that while certain parameters are
`
`extremely important to achieve a particular outcome, electrolytic processes are not
`
`governed by a single variable. As stated above and expanded upon below, each of
`
`the variables identified in paragraph 30 would affect the size of bubbles created by
`
`electrolysis of water.
`
`IX. Anticipation
`
`A.
`
`Tremblay
`
`1.
`
`Overview
`
`39.
`
`The Tremblay reference (US 2003/0042134) is a patent application
`
`directed to a method of killing organisms in water by generating mixed oxidants
`
`(i.e., hypochlorite, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and
`
`other chlor-oxygenated species) in the water. Ex. 1012 at 1111 Abstract, 1-2, 24, and
`
`14
`
`_ 12 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`14
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`27. An oxidant is a substance that has the ability to accept an electron from
`
`another substance. The Tremblay application teaches that its processes generate
`
`mixed oxidants which are primarily chlorine-based. It states that these include
`
`hypochlorite and chlorine. The process and structures of the Tremblay application
`
`are configured to form hypochlorite (OCl') ions and chlorine (C12)
`
`in water.
`
`Tremblay is not concerned with electrolysis of water to produce oxygen and does
`
`not discuss or contemplate oxygenating water or producing micro and nanobubbles
`
`of oxygen.
`
`2.
`
`Biased Reproduction does not Prove Inherency
`
`40.
`
`Because Tremblay does not explicitly disclose creation of
`
`microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen, Petitioner attempted to reproduce
`
`Tremblay, to show that the reproduction produces microbubbles and nanobubbles
`
`of oxygen, and to use that to argue that Tremblay inherently produces such
`
`bubbles.
`
`41. As mentioned above, however, I have been informed that inherency is
`
`only shown if a reference necessarily and inevitably includes a missing element. I
`
`have also been informed this means that reference must include the element every
`
`time, and that probabilities and likelihoods are not sufficient. Petitioner’s
`
`15
`
`_ 13 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`15
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`reproduction and analysis fall short of proving that microbubbles and nanobubbles
`
`of oxygen are produced every time.
`
`42.
`
`Petitioner’s alleged reproduction of the Tremblay reference does not
`
`reproduce any embodiment disclosed by Tremblay. Instead, Tremblay discloses a
`
`range of values and options that can be selected for a number of relevant
`
`parameters. Petitioner selected specific values from these ranges and options to
`
`create an embodiment that is not taught by Tremblay.
`
`43.
`
`Petitioner chose the material to use to make the anode from a list
`
`described by Tremblay that includes: “Preferred” materials such as “stainless steel,
`
`platinum, palladium, iridium, ruthenium, as well as iron, nickel, chromium, and
`
`alloys and metal oxides thereof;” and “[m]ore preferred” materials 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.” Ex. 1012 at
`
`110057. From this list, Petitioner chose titanium substrate coated with platinum. Ex.
`
`1003 at 11 44.
`
`44.
`
`Petitioner’s choice of the anode material would affect the rate of
`
`electrolysis and the chemistry caused by the electrolysis. For example, ruthenium
`
`oxide preferentially creates chlorine instead of oxygen . It also affects the force
`
`16
`
`_ 14 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`16
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`required to detach the bubbles from the electrodes. Rougher materials will cause
`
`the bubbles to cling longer to the anode, which could lead to larger bubbles.
`
`45.
`
`Petitioner also chose the material to use to make the cathode from the
`
`same list described above for anodes. From that list, Petitioner chose a titanium
`
`substrate coated with platinum. Similar to the anode, Petitioner’s cathode choice
`
`would affect the rate of electrolysis and the chemistry caused by the electrolysis.
`
`46.
`
`Petitioner also selected anode dimensions. Tremblay describes
`
`surface areas of “from about 0.1 cm2 to about 60 cmz,” with a preferred range of
`
`“about 1 cm2 to about 20 cmz,” and most preferred range of “about 3 cm2 to about
`
`10 cm2. Id. at 110079. Petitioner selected specific dimensions. Id. The electrode
`
`dimensions affect the rate of the electrolysis by changing the current density
`
`between the plates as well as the amount of time water is in contact with the
`
`electrode plates. They also affect the force applied to the oxygen bubbles by the
`
`water flow:
`
`the same flow rate through the electrolysis system would have less
`
`force at a given point if the flow area created by the electrodes was larger.
`
`47.
`
`Petitioner selected an electrode gap. Tremblay explains that the gap is
`
`“preferably 0.5 mm or less, more preferably 0.2 mm or less.” Ex. 1012 at 110044.
`
`Petitioner chose a gap of 0.381 mm. The electrode gap affects the rate of the
`
`electrolysis by changing the current felt at a particular location on each electrode.
`
`17
`
`_ 15 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`17
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`It also affects the force applied to the oxygen bubbles by the water flow for the
`
`same reason as electrode area.
`
`48.
`
`Petitioner selected a water flow rate. Tremblay describes water flow
`
`rates of 100-300, 500, or 1,000 cc/min. Ex. 1012 at 110079, 10088 (Table A),
`
`10089, 110090. Petitioner flowed water into the Tremblay cell at a rate of 300
`
`cc/min. Ex. 1003 at 1148. The flow rate affects the force applied to the oxygen
`
`bubbles by the flowing water. It also affects the amount of time water is in contact
`
`with the electrode plates.
`
`49.
`
`Petitioner selected a power source. Tremblay describes a number of
`
`different voltages to supply to the cell, including 1.5V, 3V, 4.5V, 6V, or any other
`
`voltage that meets the power requirements of the electrolysis device. Ex. 1012 at
`
`110069. Tremblay chose a power supply of 4.5V. Ex. 1003 at 1154. This power
`
`source affects the rate of electrolysis. More power leads to higher current density
`
`and faster electrolysis.
`
`50.
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Tremblay selected specific values for the variables
`
`identified above. He tested only those specific values. Each of these variables
`
`impacts the rate and extent of electrolysis and the chemistry that occurs, which in
`
`turn impacts the rate of oxygenation (if any) and bubble size. Yet Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Tremblay do not offer any data or opinions concerning the impact the selection
`
`18
`
`_ 16 _
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`18
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`of other variables would have had on the results he observed. As these variables
`
`are unspecified and can have a direct impact on the electrolysis process, Petitioner
`
`has failed to demonstrate that Tremblay “necessarily” leads to the oxygenation of
`
`water with microbubbles and/0r nanobubbles of oxygen as required by the claims
`
`of the ’415 patent.
`
`51.
`
`For this reason, I do not believe Petitioner or Dr. Tremblay have
`
`demonstrated that the unspecified processes described by the Tremblay reference
`
`necessarily and inevitably lead to the oxygenation of water with microbubbles and
`
`nanobubbles of oxygen having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns as
`
`required by the claims of the ’415 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Satoh
`
`52.
`
`The Satoh reference (US 6,251,259) does not address or suggest the
`
`oxygenation of water or creation of micro— or nanobubbles of oxygen. Satoh is
`
`instead focused upon the use of a membrane in an electrolytic cell as a means to
`
`control pH and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of water. Ex. 1046 at Abstract.
`
`Satoh is entirely focused on simultaneously modulating these two parameters of
`
`water, pH and ORP, to combat oxidative damage of living tissues.
`
`[D]isease is mainly caused by the damage of biomolecules within an
`
`organism resulting from oxidation of the biomolecules with active
`
`oxygen formed therein, and such active oxygen can be reduced with
`
`_ 17 _
`
`19
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`19
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`hydrogen to form non-toxic water. By promoting the reaction, higher
`
`medical effects can be obtained, and the applicants of the present
`
`application found through their study that it is preferable to use
`
`electrolyzed water of a minus oxidation—reduction potential (ORP) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Id. at 1:28-37.
`
`53.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Satoh inherently creates microbubbles and
`
`nanobubbles of oxygen having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns is only
`
`supported by its argument that the patent admits that all electrolysis systems that
`
`have electrodes separated by the critical distance create microbubbles and
`
`nanobubbles. As stated above, a POSA would not interpret the patent specification
`
`to make this alleged admission. Instead, a POSA would know such a statement
`
`would be scientifically incorrect.
`
`54.
`
`Satoh also includes an important distinction from the disclosure of
`
`the ’41 5 patent. Satoh is aimed at describing how the use of a semiporous
`
`membrane changes the outcome of the analytical process to permit the independent
`
`control of pH and CPR. Ex. 1046 at 2:22-63; 6:23-7:55. Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Tremblay simply ignore this membrane and the impact it would have on the
`
`electrolytic process, even though its effect on the electrolytic process is the entire
`
`point of Satoh. Petitioner offers no evidence, neither data nor expert opinion,
`
`I
`
`concerning the impact of this membrane; consequently, Petitioner’s bold
`
`20
`
`_ 18 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`20
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`conclusion that Satoh inherently yields oxygen bubbles of the claimed size can be
`
`dismissed for this reason alone.
`
`55. Additionally, like Tremblay, Petitioner does not identify a particular
`
`embodiment from Satoh that includes detail about the various parameters that
`
`affect the size of the bubbles that would be created. Satoh does not provide
`
`guidance about anode composition, cathode composition, or electrode dimensions.1
`
`(See paragraphs 44-47 above, describing the relevance of these features.) It
`
`describes the use of currents of 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14 A. (Ex. 1046 at 1127-25, Table
`
`2; 9:37-42; 10:53-59; 12:60—64; 13:18-29; see paragraphs 47, 50, describing the
`
`relevance of current and current density.)
`
`56.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willfiil
`
`false statements may jeopardize the validity of the ‘415 Patent.
`
`1 Satoh references electrodes with a surface area of 24 em2 but does not identify the
`
`dimensions leading to that surface area.
`
`_ 19 _
`
`21
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`21
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00602
`
`Patent RE45,41 5
`
`Executed
`
`Q finé/Qa/
`
`3/2172: g“: 5 MM”
`
`Dr. Ralph E. White
`
`22
`
`_ 20 _
`
`OWT EX. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`22
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`23
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`23
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Ralph E. White
`
`January 2021
`
`Professor, Chemical Engineering
`Birth date: November 6, 1942
`Citizenship: U.S.
`Birthplace: Clovis, New Mexico
`Security Clearance: None
`Number of Children: 4
`
`
`Address:
`Department of Chemical Engineering
`Swearingen Engineering Center, Room 3C11
`University of South Carolina
`Columbia, South Carolina 29208
`Phone: 803 777 3270
`Cell: 803 240 7132
`E-mail white@cec.sc.edu
`
`Research Interests: Electrochemical Systems, Mathematical Modeling, Batteries, Corrosion,
`& Electrodeposition
`EDUCATION
`B.S., Engineering, University of South Carolina, 1971
`M.S., Chemical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 1973 (Advisor – Robert P.
`Merrill)
`Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 1977 (Advisor – John S.
`Newman)
`
`
`
`EXPERIENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`OWT Ex. 2010
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-00602
`
`
`
`Educational
`
`Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1977–1981
`Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1981–1985
`Professor, Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1985–1993
`Associate Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University,
`1990–1993
`Professor, Chemical Engineering, University of South Carolina, 1993–present
`Chairman of the Department of Chemical Engineering, University of South Carolina,
`1993–2000
`Distinguished Scientist, University of South Carolina, 1993-present
`Director, Center for Electrochemical Engineering, University of South Carolina, 1995-
`2000
`Dean, College of Engineering and Computing, Univ. of South Carolina 2000-2005
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
