throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KERR MACHINE COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`v.
`S.P.M. FLOW CONTROL, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Patent No. 9,879,659
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. TIPTON, PH.D, P.E.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 136
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 
`
`II.  Background and Qualifications ........................................................................ 4 
`
`III.  Bases for Opinions ........................................................................................... 6 
`
`IV.  Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 7 
`
`A.  Patentability ................................................................................................... 7 
`
`B.  Prior Art ....................................................................................................... 12 
`
`C. 
`
`Inherency ...................................................................................................... 12 
`
`D.  Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................................ 13 
`
`E.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 15 
`
`V. 
`
`Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 16 
`
`VI.  Technological Background And State Of The Art ......................................... 17 
`
`A.  Basics of Reciprocating Pumps ................................................................... 18 
`
`B.  High-Pressure Pump Assemblies ................................................................. 20 
`
`C.  Power End Crankshaft Bearing Journals and Support Components ........... 21 
`
`D.  Pump Skids and Structural Elements ........................................................... 25 
`
`E.  Pump Mounting and Shaft Alignment ......................................................... 33 
`
`VII.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 39 
`
`VIII.  Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 40 
`
`IX.  Detailed Opinions of Unpatentability ............................................................. 40 
`
`A.  The Prior Art References are Analogous to the Claimed Invention. ........... 41 
`
`Page 2 of 136
`
`

`

`1.  Maverick is Analogous Prior Art ............................................................. 42 
`
`2.  Rambin is Analogous Prior Art ................................................................ 43 
`
`3.  Marran is Analogous Prior Art ................................................................. 44 
`
`4.  Ojalvo is Analogous Prior Art .................................................................. 45 
`
`B.  The Asserted Grounds Render the Challenged Claims Unpatentable ......... 46 
`
`C.  Secondary Considerations Of Non-Obviousness ........................................ 91 
`
`X.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 91 
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 136
`
`

`

`I, Steven M. Tipton, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Kerr Machine Co.
`
`(“Kerr”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to study and provide my opinions concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,879,659 (“the ‘659 Patent”) and the patentability of its claimed
`
`inventions in view of certain prior art references, the state of the art at the time of
`
`the claimed inventions, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the claimed inventions.
`
`3. My opinions and views set forth in this declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience in the field of positive displacement pumps, their
`
`internal components, and related technical areas, as well Petitioner’s Exhibits 1001-
`
`1030, and other materials that are cited and discussed herein.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`5.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University. I
`
`have taught Mechanical Design and Senior Design Projects, along with other
`
`undergraduate and graduate mechanics and materials courses at The University of
`
`Tulsa for 38 years. I am a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering
`
`and the American Society for Materials. I was a 2010 Distinguished Lecturer for the
`
`Page 4 of 136
`
`

`

`Society of Petroleum Engineers and received the H.R. Worthington Medal from the
`
`ASME Petroleum Division in 2013. I have been an active industry consultant and
`
`hold 9 patents with another pending.
`
`6. My work as a researcher and consultant has included high-pressure
`
`equipment used in the oilfield, including work on both the power and fluid ends of
`
`positive displacement pumps. I conducted a comprehensive multiaxial fatigue life
`
`analysis on crankshafts in the power end of positive displacement pumps in 1993 for
`
`a company called Twentieth Century Manufacturing (which was purchased by
`
`Gardner Denver in the mid 1990’s). I conducted two major research projects to study
`
`and optimize the fatigue behavior of fluid ends in positive displacement pumps. The
`
`first was from 1990-95 with Schlumberger and the Oklahoma Center for the
`
`Advancement of Science and Technology, and the second from 2011-2014 with
`
`Gardner-Denver. Both of these projects focused on optimizing the beneficial
`
`influence of autofrettage to maximize the endurance of the crossbore intersections.
`
`Many other structural/functional aspects of fluid ends were considered during this
`
`research, as autofrettage had the potential to affect other high stress regions, such as
`
`o-ring glands, and could distort the overall geometry of the fluid end, affecting its
`
`assembly to the power end.
`
`7.
`
`I conducted a one-year sabbatical leave project with Schlumberger in
`
`1991. A major portion of this was developing a design algorithm to properly include
`
`Page 5 of 136
`
`

`

`internal and external O-ring seal glands in Acme threaded connections with
`
`prescribed safety factors against yielding due to axial loading and internal/external
`
`pressure differentials. I have also designed a number of medium pressure (e.g., 15
`
`ksi) end caps for coiled tubing fatigue test samples with internal o-ring glands.
`
`8.
`
`I have previously testified as an expert witness. A list of those matters
`
`within the last four years is attached to this declaration as part of Appendix A.
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at a rate of
`
`$425.00 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable expenses, such as travel
`
`expenses. My compensation is not contingent on my opinions, on the outcome of
`
`any matter, or on any of the technical positions I explain in this declaration.
`
`10.
`
`I have no financial interest in Kerr, the Patent Owner (whom I
`
`understand to be S.P.M. Flow Control, Inc., SPM Oil & Gas Inc., and/or their parent,
`
`Caterpillar Inc.), or the ‘659 Patent.
`
`III. BASES FOR OPINIONS
`11. The opinions set forth in this declaration are my own. In forming the
`
`opinions herein, I have considered the exhibits to the Petition cited herein, as well
`
`as any additional materials cited in this declaration, and my education, training, and
`
`experience.
`
`12. My analysis of the materials relating to this matter is ongoing and I will
`
`continue to review any new material that is provided to me. This Declaration
`
`Page 6 of 136
`
`

`

`represents certain opinions that I have formed to date and the bases for those
`
`opinions. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions based
`
`on new information presented to me and on my continuing analysis of the materials
`
`cited herein or later provided to me.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions, as set
`
`forth below.
`
`A. PATENTABILITY
`14.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be valid and
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what was
`
`known and came before it. That which was known or came before the invention
`
`claimed is generally referred to as “prior art.”
`
`15.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can show that the claim was obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field of the invention at the time the invention was made.
`
`Page 7 of 136
`
`

`

`16.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art,
`
`each and every element or requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference.
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that whether a claimed invention is obvious is a
`
`question of law, with underlying factual inquiries that are determined from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is obvious if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”).
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness requires consideration of the
`
`following underlying factual inquiries:
`
` determining the scope and content of the prior art
` ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the
`prior art;
` resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
` evaluating objective evidence or “secondary considerations” of non-
`obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved
`needs, failure of others, industry praise, and unexpected results.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 136
`
`

`

`20.
`
`It is my understanding that a reference must be analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention in order to be properly considered for use in an obviousness
`
`inquiry. It is my understanding that a reference is analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention if:
`
` the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or
` the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`invention).
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that whether a reference is reasonably pertinent
`
`turns on how the problem faced by the inventor is reflected, either explicitly or
`
`implicitly, in the specification.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that the following are exemplary rationales that
`
`may support a conclusion of obviousness:
`
` Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
` Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
` Use of known techniques to improve a similar method or product in the
`same way;
` Applying a known technique to a known method or product ready for
`
`Page 9 of 136
`
`

`

`improvement to yield predictable results;
` Obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable 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 predictable 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 reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
`In addition to the above, I understand that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art may resort to logic, judgment and common sense available to him or her at
`
`the time of the invention to find a claim feature obvious, even if the prior art relied
`
`on does not explicitly state or teach that feature. I understand that when common
`
`sense is relied on to find a feature obvious, the reasoning for that conclusion must
`
`be articulated with sufficient clarity.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that a patent claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`An obviousness determination requires finding both that a skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`Page 10 of 136
`
`

`

`expectation of success in doing so. I understand that it is important to be careful not
`
`to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to produce the claimed invention,
`
`without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to
`
`produce the claimed invention.
`
`25. Regarding “objective evidence” or “secondary considerations,” I
`
`understand that for such evidence to be relevant to the obviousness of a claim, there
`
`must be a causal relationship (called a “nexus”) between the claim and the evidence.
`
`I also understand that such objective evidence may include: commercial success of
`
`products covered by the patent claims; long-felt need for the invention; failed
`
`attempts by others to solve the problem addressed by the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise
`
`of the invention; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making or use of the invention;
`
`and that the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity. I further understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out
`
`precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take into account “ordinary innovation” that does no more than yield
`
`predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would be understood to employ.
`
`Page 11 of 136
`
`

`

`27.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents and publications; the effects of demands known to the
`
`relevant field or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`B. Prior Art
`28.
`
`I understand that for purposes of this proceeding, prior art includes
`
`patents and printed publications in or outside the United States before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention. I also understand that prior art includes U.S.
`
`patents, published U.S. patent applications, and published international applications
`
`(pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty) that themselves have an effective filing
`
`date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as long as they name
`
`another inventor.
`
`C. INHERENCY
`29.
`
`I understand that if a prior art reference does not expressly set forth a
`
`particular claim element, the prior art may still disclose that element if it is “inherent”
`
`in its disclosure. To establish inherency, it is my understanding that evidence must
`
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
`
`Page 12 of 136
`
`

`

`described in the reference. It is my understanding that inherency may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities. In other words, it is my understanding
`
`that the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances
`
`is not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device,
`
`in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform a claimed method, then
`
`the method will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. I also
`
`understand that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the
`
`specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will
`
`inherently perform the claimed process.
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`31.
`
`I understand that “a person of ordinary skill in the art” or POSITA is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. Such a person would necessarily have the capability of understanding
`
`any scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`a. the educational level of the inventor;
`
`b. the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`Page 13 of 136
`
`

`

`c. prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`d. the rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`e. the sophistication of the technology; and
`
`f. the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a real person,
`
`but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors
`
`above. This hypothetical person has knowledge of all prior art in the relevant field
`
`as if it were arranged on a workshop wall and takes from each reference what it
`
`would teach to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton. In many cases a person of ordinary skill will
`
`be able to fit the teachings of multiple prior art references together like pieces of a
`
`puzzle.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art can collaborate
`
`with one or more other persons of ordinary skill in the art for one or more aspects
`
`with which the other person may have superior expertise, experience, and/or
`
`knowledge.
`
`Page 14 of 136
`
`

`

`E. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`36.
`
`It is my understanding that claim construction, or the interpretation of
`
`the claims of a patent, is ultimately a question of law. I have been informed that
`
`claim terms are generally presumed to carry their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`However, I understand that a patent applicant is his own lexicographer and is entitled
`
`to provide alternate definitions of words in common usage, but if the patent applicant
`
`uses a term that is in common usage without providing an alternate definition, then
`
`that term should generally be understood as having its common meaning.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`a claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent specification and the “file
`
`history” of the patent developed during examination by the Patent Office.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the claims, the specification, and the file history are
`
`referred to as “intrinsic evidence,” and are to be read as a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention would have done at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`39.
`
`In addition to the intrinsic evidence, I understand that the court or
`
`tribunal may also consider other relevant evidence, which is called “extrinsic
`
`evidence,” concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms,
`
`and the state of the art. Such evidence includes the testimony of expert witnesses.
`
`Page 15 of 136
`
`

`

`Although extrinsic evidence may be used to resolve ambiguities that may exist after
`
`reviewing the intrinsic evidence, I understand that extrinsic evidence cannot be used
`
`to contradict a claim construction that is clear from the intrinsic evidence.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that some claims are independent, and that those
`
`independent claims are complete by themselves. Other claims refer to these
`
`independent claims, or other dependent claims, and are “dependent” on those claims.
`
`The dependent claims include all of the limitations of the claims on which they
`
`depend.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`41. For reasons described in more detail in this Declaration, my opinions
`
`are summarized as follows:
`
`42. Claims 1-8, 11-15, 18, and 20 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Maverick in view of Rambin, further in view of Marran. Maverick discloses a skid-
`
`mountable reciprocating pump having a power end assembly with end plates and
`
`multiple middle plates, with a pair of feet attached to each plate. Rambin discloses a
`
`modular skid base for supporting reciprocating pumps such as Maverick’s. Marran
`
`discloses pads for mounting a pump to a base such as in Rambin. It was obvious to
`
`mount the feet of Maverick’s pump to a skid such as in Rambin using Marran’s pads.
`
`The differences between Maverick in view of Rambin, further in view of Marran
`
`and the claimed invention are such that it was obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`Page 16 of 136
`
`

`

`skill in the art when considering Maverick in view of Rambin, further in view of
`
`Marran. This combination is referred to as Ground 1.
`
`43. Claims 10 and 17 were obvious under § 103 over Maverick in view of
`
`Rambin, further in view of Marran, further in view of Ojalvo. Marran discloses pads
`
`for mounting a pump as in Maverick to a skid as in Rambin. Ojalvo suggests the use
`
`of web stiffeners or “gussets” to stiffen structural steel members such as skid
`
`segments. It was obvious to mount the feet of Maverick’s pump to a skid as
`
`suggested by Rambin, modified with web stiffeners or gussets as suggested by
`
`Ojalvo, using Marran’s pads. The differences between Maverick in view of Rambin,
`
`further in view of Marran, further in view of Ojalvo and the claimed invention are
`
`such that it was obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when considering
`
`Maverick in view of Rambin, further in view of Marran, further in view of Ojalvo.
`
`This combination is referred to as Ground 2.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`44. The claims of the ‘659 Patent are directed toward a reciprocating pump
`
`assembly, and specifically the power end frame assembly, as well as a skid for
`
`supporting the pump. Ex-1001, Abstract.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of the Petition, that the effective filing
`
`date of the invention can be no earlier than July 25, 2014, the date that the first
`
`provisional application from which the ‘659 Patent was filed claims priority. See Ex-
`
`Page 17 of 136
`
`

`

`1001, “Related U.S. Application Data.” Therefore, I will discuss the technological
`
`background, including the basic operation of reciprocating pumps and the design of
`
`their housings and skids, before that date.
`
`A. BASICS OF RECIPROCATING PUMPS
`46. A reciprocating pump is generally understood as any machine using
`
`reciprocating motion to cause fluid to be moved from one location to another.
`
`Reciprocating pumps are a form of positive displacement pumps. These pumps
`
`encase a fixed fluid volume in a rigid enclosure and displace a cylindrical volumetric
`
`portion of it via a plunger (also referred to as a piston). Such pumps have long been
`
`used to meet high pressure pumping requirements. For example, these pumps are
`
`often used as drilling or “mud pumps,” which are used to circulate drilling fluids and
`
`cuttings (drilling mud) during drilling of oil or gas wells. See, e.g., Ex-1015, 1:15-
`
`22. They are also used in hydraulic fracturing, which involves pumping fluid at high
`
`pressures to create fractures in hydrocarbon-bearing formations. See Ex-1016 ¶2.
`
`47. These pumps have two primary sections. The “fluid end” receives
`
`relatively low pressure fluid and, via a number of plungers, pressurizes the fluid to
`
`a relatively higher pressure. Id. The plungers are driven by a crankshaft in the “power
`
`end” which is attached to a power source or prime mover, such as a diesel engine or
`
`electric motor. See id. In the figure below, the fluid end (116) includes everything in
`
`Page 18 of 136
`
`

`

`the purple housing, and the power end (100) includes everything in the green
`
`housing. Id. ¶20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. The power end
`
`includes crankshaft 134 (orange) coupled
`
`to
`
`piston/plunger 146 (blue) via connecting rod 144 (pink). Ex-1016 ¶ 20. The engine
`
`(not shown) rotates the crankshaft, causing the piston to reciprocate between a
`
`suction stroke away from the fluid end and a power stroke toward the fluid end, as
`
`indicated by the dashed red arrow. This causes fluid to be drawn into the fluid end
`
`via an inlet and out of the fluid end via an outlet, as indicated by the blue arrow.
`
`49. When the plunger moves back on the suction stroke, suction valve 154
`
`opens and fluid is drawn from suction inlet 166 into passage 158. The suction valve
`
`Page 19 of 136
`
`

`

`closes at the end of the stroke. Id. The plunger re-enters the chamber on its forward
`
`power stroke, forcing the fixed volume of fluid in passage 158 through the output
`
`valve 156. Id.
`
`B. HIGH-PRESSURE PUMP ASSEMBLIES
`50.
`
`It is common for reciprocating pumps to use multiple plungers and
`
`corresponding fluid end assemblies. Such pumps are generally referred to as
`
`“multiplex” pumps, such as “triplex” (three plungers) and “quintuplex” (five
`
`plungers) pumps. Ex-1017, 3:28-38.
`
`51. An example of a “triplex” pump assembly is depicted below, having a
`
`set of three cylinders 16 in respective plunger bores. Ex-1017, 4:43-64. It has a
`
`power end 13 (green) with three plungers and a fluid end 15 (purple) having three
`
`corresponding plunger bores. Id. A single crankshaft reciprocates all three plungers,
`
`causing fluid in the suction manifold 19 to be drawn into the suction inlet (not
`
`depicted) of each fluid assembly and pumped out of discharge outlet 21. See id., 5:2-
`
`11.
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 136
`
`

`

`
`
`C. POWER END CRANKSHAFT BEARING JOURNALS AND
`SUPPORT COMPONENTS
`52.
`
`In order to understand the invention described by the claims, I will
`
`discuss power end design with respect to the figures below, which are taken from
`
`Ex-1018. Ex-1018 is directed to an invention of a crankshaft which has been reduced
`
`in weight by removing material. See Ex-1018, Abstract. However, the arrangement
`
`of the various components is representative of typical multiplex power ends using
`
`crankshafts which have not been so modified.
`
`53.
`
`In a triplex pump, the crankshaft 300 features four main bearing
`
`journals 302. The main bearing journals have a bearing face 304 upon which roller
`
`bearings 602 are installed. Ex-1018 ¶¶26, 32, Fig. 6 (reproduced below). The roller
`
`bearings feature an inner bearing race that contacts the main bearing journal face
`
`304. Id. ¶32.
`
`Page 21 of 136
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54. The crankshaft 300 is located inside pump housing 702. Id. ¶ 33, Fig. 7
`
`(reproduced below). The main bearings 602 which roll within outer bearing races
`
`706, which are mounted within bores through the main bearing webs 704 (green).
`
`Id. The webs of the ‘659 Patent are referred to therein as “plate segments” or simply
`
`“segments” and differentiated as to whether they are “end [plate] segments” or
`
`“middle [plate] segments.” See, e.g., Ex-1001,3:47-60 (referencing Figures 14-20),
`
`9:55-62. The claims refer to them as both “plates” (claim 1 and dependents) and
`
`“segments” (claim 12 and dependents). Id., 21:37-22:59.
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 136
`
`

`

`
`55. The webs provide positional support for the crankshaft and help
`
`dissipate the tremendous force and vibration generated within and by the frac pump
`
`during operation. Ex-1018 ¶33. The bearing face 304 supports the forces exhibited
`
`on the crankshaft by the reciprocating connecting rod/piston/plunger arrangement
`
`by transferring the compressive forces encountered from the rod bearing journal 308,
`
`through the main bearing journal bearing face 304, the roller bearings 602, the outer
`
`bearing races 706, into the support webs 704, and ultimately to the power end
`
`housing where the forces are dissipated. Id.
`
`Page 23 of 136
`
`

`

`56.
`
`It was common for multiplex pumps to have supports of some type to
`
`support the crankshaft and its bearings. For example, before the effective filing date,
`
`Kerr sold the QWS1000S fracturing pump. As shown below, the power end housing
`
`includes such supports, comprising circular end and middle “plates” as shown.1 The
`
`crankshaft would extend through and be supported by such components, as was
`
`common practice at the time.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=678NKpSpL9I as of April 18,
`2014.
`
`Page 24 of 136
`
`

`

`D. PUMP SKIDS AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
`57.
`
`It is common to mount machinery such as pumps and motors to “skids”
`
`for transport and/or ease of placement. See, e.g., Ex-1017, 1:26-29, 4:67-5:2; Ex-
`
`1022, 6:45-57. “Skid” is simply a term used to refer to the framework used to support
`
`such machines. Ex-1023, 1:19-21.
`
`58. Many applications require transportation of pumps to various locations.
`
`For example, for fracturing operations a pump truck typically needs to fracture wells
`
`at different well sites. The power end housings of these pumps are designed to be
`
`mounted to a skid for transport to or from a wellsite (e.g., by truck). Ex-1017, 1:26-
`
`29.
`
`59. Skids typically have a frame formed from multiple, intersecting beams
`
`or tubulars for mounting very heavy machinery, such as the pump assemblies
`
`discussed above. Reciprocating pumps have been mounted to such skids for
`
`transport for many decades.
`
`60. For example U.S. Patent 4,553,298 (Ex-1022) discloses a power end
`
`housing that is integral with a support skid. In reference to Figure 2, the skid “is
`
`constructed in accordance with oilfield equipment practices” and includes parallel
`
`beams 102 and 104 (green) that are interconnected at their opposite ends by
`
`transverse steel tubular sections 106 and 108 (red). Ex-1022, 6:45-57. The beams
`
`102 and 104 can be I or H beams. Id.
`
`Page 25 of 136
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`61. U.S. Patent 4,341,508 (Ex-1004) also discloses a skid assembly for
`
`multiple reciprocating pumps. Ex-1004, 1:42-54, 6:53-60, Fig. 4. The skid includes
`
`parallel “I-beam type structural elements” 120, 122, and 124. Id., 9:27-33, Figs. 9,
`
`10. These skid segments connect together using bolt flanges and locking elements.
`
`Id., 9:33-47. Figure 11 shows a power source (engine/motor) connected to a drive
`
`through shaft 152 for rotating the crankshafts of two pumps 148, 150.
`
`
`
`Page 26 of 136
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`62. Skids are typically comprised of at least two longer longitudinal or side
`
`members, and any number of transverse members. The particular arrangement and
`
`number of longitudinal members and transverse members is a design choice based
`
`on the desired orientation and load of the equipment mounted thereon. The primary
`
`prerequisites are that the skid adequately and stably support the mounted equipment
`
`while performing its intended function of providing a stable base for transportation
`
`and operation. See, e.g., Ex-1030 at 21 (“2. The skid . . . must be of sufficient strength
`
`Page 27 of 136
`
`

`

`to prevent flexing of the equipment. 3. The skid . . . must be of sufficient size and
`
`design to maintain the equipment free of strain.”).
`
`63. For example, the skid of Exhibit 1022 referenced above is oriented such
`
`that its two longitudinal or side members 102 and 104 are perpendicular to its
`
`crankshaft 20 and parallel to the power end’s bearing support plate members 50,52,
`
`54, and 56. Ex-1022, 4:56-62, 5:24-34, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`64.
`
`In Exhibit 1004, when considering the overall skid base, the
`
`longitudinal members 120 are parallel to the driveshafts 60, 68, 90 (which turn the
`
`crankshaft and are in alignment with it), and are thus perpendicular to the bearing
`
`support webs or plates. Ex-1004, 6:53-60, 7:41-55, Figs. 1, 9. Fig. 1 is reproduced
`
`below with the underlying skid base of Figure 9 imposed for reference. When
`
`Page 28 of 136
`
`

`

`considering the individual pump skid modules, the longitudinal members are
`
`actually the transverse members 124, which run per

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket