UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APEAL BOARD
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent No. RE45,415
`
`Reissued: March 17, 2015
`
`Filed September 28, 2011
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH E. WHITE
`
`OWT EX. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 1
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications, Experience, Publications ......................................................... 1
`III. Compensation .................................................................................................. 4
`IV. Prior Testimony ............................................................................................... 4
`V. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 5
`VI. Relevant Legal Principles ................................................................................ 6
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`A.
`B.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`C. Anticipation Law ................................................................................... 7
`D. Obviousness Law .................................................................................. 8
`VII. Background of the Technology ..................................................................... 11
`VIII. The ‘415 Patent .............................................................................................. 12
`IX. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 15
`1. Wikey .................................................................................................. 15
`Overview ................................................................................... 15
`a.
`c.
`Biased Reproduction does not Prove Inherency ....................... 18
`Davies .................................................................................................. 20
`Overview ................................................................................... 20
`a.
`b.
`Biased Reproduction does not Prove Inherency ....................... 21
`The Asserted Combinations in Ground 2 and 3 Do Not Render the Claims
`Obvious .......................................................................................................... 24
`
`2.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
` 2
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH E. WHITE
`
`1.
`
`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. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 3
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`6.
`
`In 1971, I graduated with a BS. in Engineering from the University of
`
`South Carolina. In 1973, I obtained my MS. 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. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 4
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`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.
`
`1 1.
`
`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. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 5
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`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 SAME, Investigation No. 337-TA-l 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-O 1239 and IPR2020-01240.
`
`16.
`
`From May 2018 to March 2019, I served as an expert Witness in Multz'
`
`Service Technology Solutions Inc. v. Lifeshield LLC, US. District Court for the
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 6
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`Western District of Missouri, Case No. l7-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 IPR2021-00625, as well as the
`
`Exhibits filed therewith.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with pages 60-64, 252-257, 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. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 7
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`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.
`
`- 5-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 8
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,41 5
`
`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.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation Law
`
`OWT EX. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
` 9
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`27.
`
`In this declaration I have been instructed by counsel on the law
`
`regarding anticipation, inherency, and Obviousness.
`
`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.
`
`D.
`
`Obviousness Law
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a patent claim can also be invalid if the claims would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`Obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight but rather from the
`
`perspective of a POSA as of the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that to obtain a patent, the claims must have been, as of
`
`the time of the invention, nonobvious in View of the prior art.
`
`10
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`10
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious when the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious. Such indicia include: industry acceptance;
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise
`
`by experts and those skilled in the art at making the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. For purposes of this
`
`declaration, I have not been asked to consider such secondary considerations.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that obviousness can be established by combining
`
`multiple prior art references to meet each and every claim element. 1 also
`
`understand that to support a combination of multiple prior art references, there
`
`must be a rationale explaining why a skilled artisan would combine the references
`
`in the manner claimed and how the proposed combination meets each and every
`
`claim element. But I also understand that a proposed combination of references can
`
`11
`
`-9-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`11
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`be susceptible to hindsight bias. When it appears hindsight bias is being used, I
`
`understand the modification or combination is not considered obvious.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion
`
`of obviousness include: combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; simple substitutions of one known element for another
`
`to obtain predictable results; using a known technique to improve similar devices
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predicable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predicable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; known
`
`work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same
`
`field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`
`variations are predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill
`
`to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that if the proposed combination results in one or more of
`
`the references being unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, a POSA would not
`
`have had a motivation to combine or modify the reference(s).
`
`12
`
`-10-
`
`OWT EX. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`12
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`36.
`
`I understand that if the proposed combination changes the principle of
`
`operation of one or more references, a POSA would not have had a motivation to
`
`combine or modify the reference(s).
`
`37.
`
`Iunderstand that teaching away, e.g., discouragement from making
`
`the proposed modification, is strong evidence that the references are not
`
`combinable. I also understand that a disclosure of more than one alternative does
`
`not necessarily constitute a teaching away.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the combination does not need to result in the most
`
`desirable embodiment, but if a POSA would not have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in pursuing the proposed combination at the time of the invention, a
`
`POSA would not have had an adequate teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine the references.
`
`VII. Background of the Technology
`
`39.
`
`Electrolysis is the process of chemical decomposition produced by
`
`passing an electric current through a liquid or solution containing ions.
`
`40. 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 effects on the
`
`electrolytic process. Other relevant variables that can significantly affect the
`
`13
`
`-11-
`
`OWT EX. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`13
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`electrolytic process include the flow rate, current density, temperature, and
`
`electrolyte composition.
`
`41.
`
`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: (l) 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.
`
`42.
`
`Each of the variables listed in paragraph 40 above affect one or more
`
`of the physical and/or chemical phenomenon listed in paragraph 41. 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
`
`43.
`
`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
`
`14
`
`-12-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`14
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`additional oxygen for plants or animals or 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.
`
`44.
`
`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”.
`
`45.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`-13-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`15
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`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.
`
`46. 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
`
`.0005-0.140, 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.)
`
`47. 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:
`
`16
`
`-14-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`16
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`[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.)
`
`48. 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 40 would affect the size of bubbles created by
`
`electrolysis of water.
`
`IX. Anticipation
`
`1. Wikey
`
`a.
`
`Overview
`
`49.
`
`The Wikey reference (Ex. 1112) is a patent directed to a water
`
`treatment apparatus for use in an aquarium. The water treatment apparatus is an
`
`17
`
`-15-
`
`OWT EX. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`17
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`electrolysis unit having a plurality of electrode plates that can be positioned in an
`
`aquarium to generate bubbles using electrolysis. Wikey discloses that the apparatus
`
`acts to kill bacteria, aerate and increase the circulation of the water in the
`
`aquarium. Wikey does not discuss a process performed on flowing water or
`
`producing a suspension comprising microbubbles or nanobubbles of oxygen in the
`
`water.
`
`50. Wikey provides illustrations of two different uses of his electrolysis
`
`unit. Fig. 2 shows the electrolysis unit in an aquarium with no tube surrounding the
`
`apparatus. Fig. 3 shows the electrolysis unit in an aquarium with a tube
`
`surrounding the unit. The tube surrounding the electrolysis unit is used to
`
`overcome thermal stratification and increase the circulation of water. As shown in
`
`Fig. 3, the structure includes a series of tubes. A first tube extends upward from the
`
`electrolysis unit above the surface of the water, a second tube branches off from
`
`the first tube at a point above the water level and extends horizontally above the
`
`surface of the water. A third tube extends vertically back down into the water from
`
`a distal end of the horizontal tube.
`
`18
`
`-15-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`18
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`
`
`51. Wikey describes that the electrolysis action of the electrolysis unit
`
`causes a pumping action in the tube. Wikey states:
`
`In fact, the level of the water in the tube 41 increases until water is
`
`flowing in the direction shown by arrows 44 in the horizontal tube 46
`
`and back down through the second vertical tube 47. The water that
`
`flows through the three tubes is forced therethrough by the electrolysis
`
`action and because of the electrolysis action contains a plethora of
`
`oxygen bubbles.
`
`(Ex. 1112 at 3:15-21.)
`
`52. A POSA would understand Wikey as being directed to the formation
`
`of small bubbles that are larger than nanobubbles and microbubbles because
`
`microbubbles and nanobubbles remain suspended in water whereas larger bubbles
`
`rise. The rising action of the larger bubbles is the pumping action that Wikey
`
`19
`
`-17-
`
`OWT EX. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`19
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`intends to create, and microbubbles and nanobubbles would not create such an
`
`action.
`
`c.
`
`Biased Reproduction does not Prove Inherency
`
`53.
`
`Because Wikey does not explicitly disclose creation of microbubbles
`
`and nanobubbles of oxygen, Petitioner attempted to reproduce Wikey, to show that
`
`the reproduction produces microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen, and to use
`
`that to argue that Tremblay inherently produces such bubbles.
`
`54.
`
`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
`
`reproduction and analysis fall short of proving that microbubbles and nanobubbles
`
`of oxygen are produced every time.
`
`55.
`
`Petitioner’s alleged reproduction of the Wikey reference does not
`
`reproduce any embodiment disclosed by Wikey. Wikey does not disclose
`
`electrode dimensions. Petitioner and Tremblay selected dimensions that were not
`
`disclosed by the reference. The electrode dimensions affect the size of bubbles
`
`that are created through electrolysis in several ways. First, they change the current
`
`density between the plates. For a given voltage applied to the plates, larger plates
`
`20
`
`—18-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`20
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`will result in less current present per unit area. Since the current per unit area is
`
`the current applied to the water, changes in the current per unit area have
`
`significant effects on the electrolysis. The dimensions of the plate can also affect
`
`the amount of time water is in contact with the electrode plates. Water contact
`
`time is a significant factor in the rate of electrolysis. The specific dimensions can
`
`also affect how quickly the oxygen bubbles release from the electrode, which can
`
`affect bubble size.
`
`56.
`
`Petitioner also selected a water flow rate that Wikey does not disclose.
`
`The selection of electrode surface area will impact the rate that water flows in the
`
`Wikey design, because Wikey relies on turbulence created by rising bubbles
`
`formed through electrolysis to move water. Therefore, because the surface area
`
`affects the number and size of bubbles that form, it also affects the flow (if any)
`
`that would be caused by those bubbles. The The movement of water around the
`
`electrodes can in turn affect how long the bubbles hang onto the electrodes and
`
`their resulting size as discussed above.
`
`57.
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Tremblay selected specific values for the variables
`
`identified above. He tested only those specific values. Each of these variables
`
`impacts the electrolysis process, including oxygenation and bubble size, in terms of
`
`the rate and extent of electrolysis and the chemistry that occurs, which in turn
`
`21
`
`-19-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`21
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`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 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 Wikey “necessarily” leads to the oxygenation of water
`
`with microbubbles and/or nanobubbles of oxygen as required by the claims of the
`
`’415 patent
`
`58.
`
`For this reason, I do not believe Petitioner or Wikey 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.
`
`2.
`
`Davies
`
`a.
`
`Overview
`
`59. Davies (Ex. 1105) does not disclose a process of oxygenating water or
`
`an act of producing a suspension comprising microbubbles and nanobubbles of
`
`oxygen. Instead, Davies is a patent directed to purifying liquid. Davies discloses
`
`that a “principal object of the invention is to remove from liquid impurities that
`
`22
`
`-20-
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021—000625
`
`
`22
`
`OWT Ex. 2109
`Tennant Company v. OWT
`IPR2021-000625
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021—00625
`
`Patent RE45,415
`
`cannot be effectively filtered out”. Col. 1, lines 25-26. Davies continues at col. 1,
`
`lines 29—35:
`
`[a]nother object is to provide a process and apparatus which will
`
`remove from liquid impurities of different types, such as chemical
`
`impurities, including chlorine, metals, and alkaline material, which
`
`will also kill and remove minute biological material, such as algae and
`
`microbes, and which will tend to render the ph of the liquid
`
`approximately neutral.
`
`b.
`
`Biased Reproduction does not Prove Inherency
`
`60.
`
`Like Wikey, Davies does not explicitly disclose creation of
`
`microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen. Therefore, Petitioner and Dr. Tremblay
`
`again attempted to reproduce Davies, show that the reproduction produces
`
`microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen, and use that to argue that Davies
`
`inherently produces such bubbles.
`
`61. Also like Wikey, Petitioner and Dr. Tremblay’s alleged reproduction
`
`of the Davies reference does not reproduce any embodiment disclosed by Davies.
`
`Instead, Davies discloses a rang