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 ..................................................................................... v
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... vii
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................... 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................... 2
`A.
`Prior Art ...................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Grounds of Invalidity .................................................................. 4
`STATE OF THE ART ........................................................................... 6
`III.
`IV. THE ʼ415 PATENT............................................................................... 9
`A. Overview ..................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Critical Distance .......................................................................... 9
`C.
`Other Parameters May Vary ..................................................... 11
`D.
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 12
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................ 16
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 17
`A.
`Lexicography ............................................................................ 17
`B.
`District Court Claim Construction Disputes ............................. 19
`VII. CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 17-27 OF THE ʼ415 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................. 19
`A. GROUND 1: Wikey Anticipates Claims 13, 18-23 and
`25 ............................................................................................... 19
`i.
`Summary of Wikey ......................................................... 19
`i.
`Independent Claim 13 ..................................................... 30
`ii.
`Claim 18 .......................................................................... 34
`iii. Claim 19 .......................................................................... 34
`iv.
`Claim 20 .......................................................................... 35
`v.
`Claim 21 .......................................................................... 36
`vi.
`Claim 22 .......................................................................... 37
`vii. Claim 23 .......................................................................... 37
`viii. Claim 25 .......................................................................... 38
`GROUND 2: Wikey and AFD Render Obvious Claims
`13, 18-23, and 25....................................................................... 39
`i.
`Summary of AFD ........................................................... 39
`ii.
`Rationale for Combining Wikey and AFD ..................... 39
`iii. Claims 13, 18-23 and 25 ................................................. 40
`GROUND 3: Wikey and AFD Render Obvious Claims
`13, 18-23, and 25 in View of the General Knowledge,
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`Experience and Common Sense of a POSITA, as
`Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and Burns ................... 40
`i. Wendt .............................................................................. 40
`ii.
`Han .................................................................................. 41
`iii. Glembotsky ..................................................................... 41
`iv.
`Burns ............................................................................... 42
`v.
`It Was Within the General Knowledge and
`Experience of a POSITA that Water Electrolysis
`Produces Oxygen Bubbles Smaller than 50
`Microns that Have the Claimed Properties. .................... 43
`Claims 13, 18-23 and 25 ................................................. 44
`vi.
`D. GROUND 4: Wikey and Clark Render Obvious Claims
`26 and 27 ................................................................................... 44
`i.
`Summary of Clark .......................................................... 44
`ii.
`Rationale for Combining Wikey and Clark .................... 45
`iii. Claim 26 .......................................................................... 46
`iv.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 46
`GROUND 5: Wikey, Clark and AFD Render Obvious
`Claims 26 and 27....................................................................... 47
`GROUND 6: Wikey, Clark and AFD Render Obvious
`Claims 26 and 27 in View of the General Knowledge,
`Experience and Common Sense of a POSITA, as
`Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky and Burns .................... 47
`G. GROUND 7: Davies Anticipates Claims 13, 14, 17-23
`and 25 ........................................................................................ 47
`i.
`Summary of Davies ........................................................ 47
`(1) Davies Cell Embodiment #1 ................................ 48
`(2) Davies Cell Embodiment #2 ................................ 50
`(3)
`Testing of Reproduced Davies Cells .................... 52
`Independent Claim 13 ..................................................... 62
`ii.
`iii. Claim 14 .......................................................................... 65
`iv.
`Claim 17 .......................................................................... 66
`v.
`Claim 18 .......................................................................... 66
`vi.
`Claim 19 .......................................................................... 66
`vii. Claim 20 .......................................................................... 67
`viii. Claim 21 .......................................................................... 68
`ix.
`Claim 22 .......................................................................... 68
`x.
`Claim 23 .......................................................................... 69
`xi.
`Claim 25 .......................................................................... 69
`
`F.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`H. GROUND 8: Davies and Hough Render Obvious Claims
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25 ................................................................. 70
`i.
`Summary of Hough ........................................................ 70
`ii. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 71
`iii. Claims 13, 14, 17-23 and 25 ........................................... 71
`GROUND 9: Davies and Erickson Render Claims 13,
`14, 17-23 and 25 Obvious ......................................................... 72
`i.
`Summary of Erickson ..................................................... 72
`ii. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 73
`iii. Claims 13, 14, 17-23 and 25 ........................................... 73
`GROUND 10: Davies, Erickson and Hough Render
`Obvious Claims 13, 14, 17-23, and 25 ..................................... 74
`K. GROUND 11: Davies and Erickson Render Obvious
`Claims 13, 14, 17-23, and 25 in View of the General
`Knowledge, Experience and Common Sense of a
`POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and
`Burns ......................................................................................... 74
`GROUND 12: Davies, Erickson and Hough Render
`Obvious Claims 13, 14, 17-23, and 25 in View of the
`General Knowledge, Experience and Common Sense of a
`POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and
`Burns ......................................................................................... 75
`M. GROUND 13: Davies and Schoeberl Render Obvious
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 75
`i.
`Summary of Schoeberl ................................................... 75
`ii. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 76
`iii. Claim 24 .......................................................................... 77
`N. GROUND 14: Davies, Schoeberl and Hough Render
`Obvious Claim 24 ..................................................................... 77
`O. GROUND 15: Davies, Erickson and Schoeberl Render
`Obvious Claim 24 ..................................................................... 78
`GROUND 16: Davies, Erickson, Schoeberl and Hough
`Render Obvious Claim 24 ......................................................... 78
`Q. GROUND 17: Davies, Erickson and Schoeberl Render
`Obvious Claim 24 in view of the General Knowledge,
`Experience and Common Sense of a POSITA, as
`Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and Burns ................... 78
`GROUND 18: Davies, Erickson, Schoeberl and Hough
`Render Obvious Claim 24 in view of the General
`Knowledge, Experience and Common Sense of a
`
`R.
`
`L.
`
`P.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and
`Burns ......................................................................................... 79
`GROUND 19: Davies and Peters Render Obvious
`Claims 26 and 27....................................................................... 79
`i.
`Summary of Peters .......................................................... 79
`ii. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 80
`iii. Claim 26 .......................................................................... 81
`iv.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 81
`GROUND 20: Davies, Peters and Hough Render
`Obvious Claims 26 and 27 ........................................................ 82
`U. GROUND 21: Davies, Peters and Erickson Render
`Obvious Claims 26 and 27 ........................................................ 82
`V. GROUND 22: Davies, Peters, Erickson and Hough
`Render Obvious Claims 26 and 27 ........................................... 82
`W. GROUND 23: Davies, Peters and Erickson Render
`Obvious Claims 26 and 27 in view of the General
`Knowledge, Experience and Common Sense of a
`POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and
`Burns ......................................................................................... 83
`X. GROUND 24: Davies, Peters, Erickson and Hough
`Render Obvious Claims 26 and 27 in view of the General
`Knowledge, Experience and Common Sense of a
`POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and
`Burns ......................................................................................... 83
`VIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED .................... 84
`IX. PARALLEL PETITIONS ................................................................... 86
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................. 86
`A.
`Real Party in Interest ................................................................. 86
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................... 86
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ...................................................... 87
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .................. 87
`XI. STANDING ......................................................................................... 87
`XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 88
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 89
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 90
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 7
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 69
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ............................................. 69
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00199, Paper 11 (Jun. 19, 2020) ......................................................... 70
`Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00115, Paper 10 (PTAB May 12, 2020) ............................................. 70
`Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC,
`946 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 8, 10
`Oticon Med. AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) .............................................. 69
`Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. v. Tennant Company,
`No. 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB (D. Minn.) ............................................................ 72
`Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.,
`945 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 7, 22
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 17
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP,
`140 S.Ct. 1367 (2020) ......................................................................................... 71
`In re Wertheim,
`541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976) .............................................................................. 7
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 72
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 72
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`-Vi-
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,917,782 to Davies
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,039,439 to Clark
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,324,398 to Erickson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,576 to Schoeberl
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,984,303 to Peters
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,049,252 to Murrell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,296,756 to Hough
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,891,535 to Wikey
`
`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 (hardcover)
`Response from the British Library regarding public availability
`request for Wendt
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`1126
`
`1127
`
`1128
`
`1129
`
`1130
`
`1131
`
`1132
`
`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
`
`Copy of cover page for Glembotsky
`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
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1133
`
`1134
`
`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
`
`1135
`
`1136
`
`1137
`
`1138
`
`1139
`
`1140
`
`1141
`
`1142
`
`1143
`
`1144
`
`1145
`
`1146
`
`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
`
`Declaration of Sheila Hatchell
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 20030042134 to Tremblay
`
`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. 1101.
`
`The ʼ415 patent relates to “the electrolytic generation of microbubbles of
`
`oxygen for increasing the oxygen content of flowing water.” Ex. 1101 at 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 No. 3,891,535 to Wikey (“Wikey”; Ex. 1112); issued on June
`
`24, 1975; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,917,782 to Davies (“Davies”; Exhibit 1105) issued on
`
`April 17, 1990; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Aquariums for Dummies, (“AFD”; Exhibit 1114) published in 1999; prior art
`
`under at least § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,039,439 to Clark (“Clark”; Ex. 1106); issued on June 26,
`
`2001; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,324,398 to Erickson (“Erickson”; Exhibit 1107), issued on
`
`June 28, 1994; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,171,469 to Hough (“Hough”; Ex. 1141); issued on January
`
`9, 2001; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,576 to Schoeberl (“Schoeberl”; Exhibit 1108), issued
`
`Aug. 8, 1995; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,984,303 to Peters (“Peters”; Ex. 1109) issued October 5,
`
`1976; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`• Wendt, H. and Kreysa, G. (1999), Electrochemical Engineering: Science
`
`and Technology in Chemical and Other Industries, Springer-Verlag Berlin
`
`Heidelberg, (hardcover) (“Wendt”; Ex. 1117); 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. 137); published in 2002; prior art under §
`
`102(b).
`
`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. 1124); 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. 1131); published in 1997; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Grounds of Invalidity
`Ground Challenged Claims Basis
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`26 and 27
`
`26 and 27
`
`26 and 27
`
`102
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25
`
`102
`
`Prior Art
`
`Wikey
`
`Wikey and AFD
`
`Wikey and AFD in view of the
`general knowledge, experience
`and common sense of a POSITA,
`as reflected in Wendt, Han,
`Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Wikey and Clark
`
`Wikey, Clark and AFD
`
`Wikey, Clark and AFD in view of
`the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Davies
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`Davies and Hough
`
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`Davies and Erickson
`
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`Davies, Erickson and Hough
`
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`Davies and Erickson in view of
`the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Davies, Erickson and Hough in
`view of the general knowledge,
`
`12
`
`13, 14, 17-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground Challenged Claims Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`24
`
`24
`
`24
`
`24
`
`24
`
`18
`
`24
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`26 and 27
`
`26 and 27
`
`26 and 27
`
`26 and 27
`
`26 and 27
`
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Davies and Schoeberl
`
`Davies, Schoeberl and Hough
`
`Davies, Erickson and Schoeberl
`
`Davies, Erickson, Schoeberl and
`Hough
`
`Davies, Erickson and Schoeberl
`in view of the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Davies, Erickson, Schoeberl and
`Hough in view of the general
`knowledge, experience and
`common sense of a POSITA, as
`reflected in Wendt, Han,
`Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Davies and Clark
`
`Davies, Clark and Hough
`
`Davies, Clark and Erickson
`
`Davies, Clark, Erickson and
`Hough
`
`Davies, Clark and Erickson in
`view of the general knowledge,
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground Challenged Claims Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`24
`
`26 and 27
`
`103
`
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Davies, Clark, Erickson and
`Hough in view of the general
`knowledge, experience and
`common sense of a POSITA, as
`reflected in 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.” Ex. 1101, 2:5-11.
`
`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.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1102, 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. 1103, ¶ 16-17. It was also well known to provide this
`
`critical 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).
`
`Furthermore, an electrolysis cell where the anode and cathode are separated
`
`by the “critical distance” taught in the ’415 patent necessarily produces bubbles of
`
`oxygen less than 50 microns in size. 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
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`1117), Han (Ex. 1137), Glembotsky (Ex. 1124), and Burns (Ex. 1131), show that it
`
`was known that electrolysis produces bubbles smaller than 50 microns. See, e.g.,
`
`Wendt (Ex. 1117) at 103 (“radii of electrochemically evolved gas bubbles are
`
`usually relatively small (5-50 μm)”); Han (Ex. 1137) 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.”).
`
`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)).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`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. 1101, 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.
`
`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.” Ex. 1101, 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.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`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 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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`As noted above, the disclosure in the patent itself may demonstrate a
`
`limitation is necessarily present. Hospira, 946 F.3d at 1332. The ’415 patent
`
`acknowledges 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. Ex. 1101, 4:33-35.
`
`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 that the emitter “may be shaped as a circle,
`
`rectangle, cone or other model.” Id., 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