TAS requests that the Board, in reviewing the Petition, reject those arguments in which Stellar attempts to leverage the term “comprising” to extend the claims’ scope to the point where they encompass the prior art, but read out express claim limitations in the process.
But without reconciling the differences between TIC and district cooling or supporting its assertions with evidence and meaningful expert testimony, Stellar’s argument amounts to little more than a conclusory paraphrasing of language from KSR that falls far short of the required detailed analysis.
Inc., IPR2014- 00529, Paper No. 8, at 15 (according “no probative weight” to an expert declaration that “does not provide any factual basis for its assertions.”) Finally, Stellar invokes the “simple substitution” language of KSR, stating that the proposed combination “requires mere simply substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of variable flow with a reasonable Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
asking the Board to find that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have connected the two technologies together, notwithstanding the fact that actual practitioners failed to do so, including Andrepont, who Dr. Reindl agreed was a “leader in the field of turbine inlet air cooling.” Ex. 2001 at 50:15-17.
Stellar argues that it would have been obvious to make such a “simple substitution” because Dharmadhikari attributes a number of benefits to its chiller arrangement, including “reduced investment cost, increased plant efficiency, and the ability to modulate operating mode according to energy demands.” Pet. at 45 (citing Ex. 1021 at 8).