Filed: August 31, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`d/b/a GITS MANUFACTURING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`G.W. LISK CO., INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-02035
`U.S. Patent 6,601,821
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT 6,601,821
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page No.
`
`  THE ’821 PATENT ....................................................................................... 3 III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
` 
`VI.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iv
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................................. vi 
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`I.
` 
`STATEMENT OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF
`II.
` 
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................. 1 
`A.  Prior Art Summary ..................................................................................... 2 
`B.  Summary of Statutory Grounds for Unpatentability .................................. 3 
`
`A.  Subject Matter of the ’821 Patent ............................................................... 4 
`B.  Prosecution History of the ’821 Patent ....................................................... 6 
`  THE PRIOR ART.......................................................................................... 7 
`A.  Martin ......................................................................................................... 7 
`B.  Eggers ......................................................................................................... 8 
`C.  Oleksiewicz .............................................................................................. 10 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 13 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 13 
`A.  “First fluid” and “second fluid” should be construed to mean
`two separate fluids. ................................................................................... 13 
`B.  If limiting, a “proportional” valve should be interpreted to
`mean a valve that moves in proportion with an input. ............................. 16 
`
`A.  The same or substantially the same prior art and arguments
`were not previously presented to the Office. ............................................ 17 
`1.  Martin .................................................................................................. 17 
`B.  Eggers ....................................................................................................... 19 
`1.  Oleksiewicz ......................................................................................... 20 
`C.  GROUND 1: Martin anticipates claims 12-22. ........................................... 20 
`
`  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 17 VII.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`1.  Independent Claim 12 ......................................................................... 22 
`2.  Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 26 
`3.  Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 27 
`4.  Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 27 
`5.  Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 28 
`6.  Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 28 
`7.  Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 29 
`8.  Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 29 
`9.  Independent Claim 20 ......................................................................... 30 
`10. Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 39 
`11. Claim 22 .............................................................................................. 40 
`D.  GROUND 2: Martin renders claim 19 obvious. ......................................... 42 
`1.  Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 42 
`E.  GROUND 3: Martin and Oleksiewicz render claim 19
`obvious. ..................................................................................................... 43 
`1.  Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 43 
`F.  GROUND 4: Eggers anticipates claims 12-13 and 16-18. ......................... 45 
`1.  Independent Claim 12 ......................................................................... 47 
`2.  Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 55 
`3.  Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 56 
`4.  Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 56 
`5.  Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 57 
`G.  GROUND 5: Eggers and Martin render claims 12-22
`obvious. .................................................................................................... 58 
`1.  Independent Claim 12 ......................................................................... 58 
`2.  Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 60 
`3.  Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 60 
`4.  Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 62 
`5.  Claims 16-18 ....................................................................................... 63 
`6.  Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 63 
`7.  Independent Claim 20 ......................................................................... 63 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`  MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 74 VIII.
`
`8.  Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 71 
`9.  Claim 22 .............................................................................................. 72 
`
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 74 
`B.  Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 74 
`C.  Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................ 74 
`Lead Counsel .................................................................................................. 74 
`Back-up Counsel ............................................................................................ 74 
`  GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................... 75 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................. 76 
`  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 76 
`
`IX.
`X.
` 
`XI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 61, 62
`
`Page(s)
`
`G.W. Lisk Co., Inc. v. GITS Mfg. Co.,
`No. 16-cv-06493 (W.D.N.Y.) ............................................................................. 74
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 42
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00486 ................................................................................................... 18
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. INO Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00889 ................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`The Scotts Co. v. Encap LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00110 ................................................................................................... 75
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 59, 65
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................... 2, 3, 22, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................... 75
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.313(b)-(c) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No.
`37 C.F.R. § 1.313(d) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................................ 74
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 76
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 75
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 13
`
`MPEP § 1305 ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`MPEP § 1308(II) ...................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1101 - U.S. Patent 6,601,821 (“the ’821 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1102 - U.S. Patent 4,201,116 (“Martin”)
`
`Exhibit 1103 - German Published Examined Application No. 1268494 (“Eggers”)
`
`Exhibit 1104 - Certified English-Language Translation of German Published
`Examined Application No. 1268494
`
`Exhibit 1105 - Declaration of Professor Thomas J. Labus
`
`Exhibit 1106 - File History of the ’821 patent
`
`Exhibit 1107 - U.S. Patent 6,006,732 (“Oleksiewicz”)
`
`Exhibit 1108 - European Patent Office Communication pursuant to Article 96(2)
`EPC, dated March 31, 2004, regarding European Patent
`Application No. 01309671.4
`
`Exhibit 1109 - Patent Owner’s amendment and response to the European Patent
`Office dated August 4, 2004, regarding European Patent
`Application No. 01309671.4
`
`Exhibit 1110 - Executed Waiver of Service dated October 12, 2016
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner Power-Packer North America, Inc., d/b/a GITS Manufacturing
`
`Co., (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 12-22 of the ’821
`
`patent. The ’821 patent relates to valve assemblies that regulate a first fluid flow
`
`using a second fluid for power. Ex. 1101 at Abstract. But the claimed devices and
`
`methods were not new or inventive. Valves incorporating well-known components
`
`such as an electrical actuator, a directional valve, a double-acting actuator, and a
`
`flow-regulating valve had long been known and used to regulate flow of a first
`
`fluid powered by a second fluid. U.S. Patent 4,201,116 (“Martin”) and German
`
`Published Application 1268494 (“Eggers”) were published decades earlier and
`
`disclose the claimed subject matter. In particular, Martin and Eggers anticipate
`
`and/or render obvious claims 12-22 of the ’821 patent.
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests review and cancellation of claims 12-22 of the ’821
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Summary
`
`Patent or Printed Publication
`
`U.S. Patent 4,201,116
`(“Martin”)
`
`German Published Examined
`Application No. 1268494
`(“Eggers”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,006,732
`(“Oleksiewicz”)
`
`U.S. Filing
`Date
`
`Publication or
`Issue Date
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`July 11, 1977
`
`May 6, 1980
`
`1102
`
`N/A
`
`May 16, 1968
`
`Sept. 3, 1998
`
`Dec. 28, 1999
`
`1103
`&
`1104
`(translation)
`1107
`
`The ’821 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 10/002,586, filed on
`
`November 15, 2001. The ’821 patent also claims priority from U.S. Provisional
`
`Patent Application 60/249,937, filed November 17, 2000, the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the ’821 patent.1
`
`U.S. Patent 4,201,116 (“Martin”) issued on May 6, 1980. Martin qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA2 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`
`1
`Petitioner does not concede that any claim of the ’821 patent is
`
`entitled to priority before November 15, 2001. For purposes of this petition,
`
`however, the asserted references qualify as prior art either way.
`
`2
`
`The ’821 patent was filed before the effective date of the AIA and is
`
`subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`German Published Examined Application 1268494 (“Eggers”) published on
`
`May 16, 1968. Eggers qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`U.S. Patent 6,006,732 (“Oleksiewicz”) issued on December 28, 1999, from
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/145,874, filed on September 3, 1998. Oleksiewicz
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Statutory Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`
`GROUND 1 12-22
`
`§ 102 – Anticipated by Martin
`
`GROUND 2 19
`
`GROUND 3 19
`
`§ 103 – Obvious over Martin
`
`§ 103 – Obvious over Martin and Oleksiewicz
`
`GROUND 4 12-13, 16-18
`
`§ 102 – Anticipated by Eggers
`
`GROUND 5 12-22
`
`§ 103 – Obvious over Eggers and Martin
`
`In support of this petition, Petitioner also includes the declaration of
`
`Professor Thomas J. Labus. Ex. 1105.
`
` THE ’821 PATENT
`III.
`
`The ’821 patent relates to a valve assembly configured to regulate the flow
`
`of a “first” fluid by controlling the flow of a separate “second” fluid using an
`
`electrical control signal. Ex. 1101 at Abstract; 1:10-13.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Subject Matter of the ’821 Patent
`
`In the illustrated device, applying electrical current to solenoid 116 (purple)
`
`moves spool 82 (orange) of four-way valve 22 to regulate flow of a “second” fluid
`
`(green) from supply port 76. Ex. 1101 at 4:28-40; 5:25-27. Depending on its
`
`position, spool 82 can open and close alternative second fluid flow paths for
`
`charging and discharging cylinder chambers 66 and 68 on opposite sides of piston
`
`head 62 within double-acting cylinder 24 (red). Ex. 1101 at 4:41-55.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 2 (highlighted). Ex. 1105, ¶18.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 3 (highlighted). Ex. 1105, ¶18.
`
`For example, moving spool 82 left from the position shown above achieves
`
`an actuated position that discharges chamber 68 and charges chamber 66. Ex. 1101
`
`at 5:25-36. Pressure in chamber 66 exerts force against face 134 of piston head 62,
`
`moving piston 60 to the right. Ex. 1101 at 5:38-42.
`
`Piston 60 of double-acting cylinder 24 (red) is connected to poppet head
`
`body 36 (blue) of exhaust valve 20. Ex. 1101 at 4:20-27. Accordingly, movement
`
`of piston head 62 driven by the second fluid moves valve 20. Ex 1101 at 5:21-24;
`
`5:37-42. Valve 20 regulates flow of a “first” fluid (yellow) supplied from inlet
`
`passages 30 and 32. Ex. 1101 at 3:61-67. A feedback spring 26 (gray) extends
`
`between piston head 62 and spool 82. Ex. 1101 at 4:57-64.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The ’821 patent makes clear that other “valves, devices, mechanisms, and
`
`actuators can be substituted” in the invention beyond the illustrated embodiment.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 6:61-67. Furthermore, the invention is not limited to regulating exhaust
`
`gas or to operating a flow control valve, and can regulate any fluid flows “that are
`
`independent of the source of fluid pressure for operating the valve assembly” and
`
`can “adjust the operating positions of other hydraulic or mechanical devices.” Ex.
`
`1101 at 6:67–7:11.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’821 Patent
`
`The ’821 patent emerged from a brief and unusual examination. The
`
`original application was filed with 22 claims. Ex. 1106 at PP0008-0028. The
`
`Examiner issued a first-action Notice of Allowability allowing all 22 claims as
`
`filed. Ex. 1106 at PP0056-0058.
`
`The Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance stated that the prior art failed to
`
`disclose a two-stage proportional control valve assembly combining:
`
`[a] a flow regulating valve for a first fluid,
`[b] an electrical actuator that converts a control signal into a force
`acting on
`[c] a directional valve that controls flow of a second fluid to
`[d] a double-acting actuator having a first surface for exposure to the
`second fluid for moving the valve open and a second surface for
`exposure to the second fluid for moving the valve closed.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1106 at PP0057 (annotations added). But the Examiner also noted that several
`
`prior art references—including Martin—disclosed valves having those same
`
`features, namely “[b] electrical actuators, [c] a directional valve, [d] actuator and
`
`[a] flow regulating valve,” without explaining any differences between Martin and
`
`the allowed claims. Ex. 1106 at PP0057 (annotations added). The applicant paid
`
`the issue fee on June 13, 2003. Ex. 1106 at PP0073.
`
`The ’821 patent issued on August 5, 2003. Ex. 1101 at (45). That same day,
`
`the applicant attempted to file a “Second Supplemental Information Disclosure
`
`Statement” with several references—including Eggers—from a foreign search
`
`report that had issued weeks earlier, on July 21, 2003. Ex. 1106 at PP0074-0079.
`
`Strangely, the Examiner responded more than two months after the ’821 patent
`
`issued, with the following statement: “The IDS of August 5, 2003 has been
`
`considered and the claims are still seen as allowable over the prior art.” Ex. 1106 at
`
`PP0080-0081.
`
`IV.
`
` THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Martin
`
`Martin discloses a two-stage “electro-hydraulic proportional control servo
`
`valve.” Ex. 1102 at 2:14-15, 5:9-10. Valve 10 includes main control valve 16 and a
`
`second valve, spool 27, within amplifier section 14. Ex. 1102 at 2:17-25, 2:42-50.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1102 at Figs. 1-2 (highlighted); Ex. 1105, ¶19.
`
`Spool 27 (orange) is controlled by solenoid 12 (purple) and regulates the
`
`flow of a fluid (green) supplied by pump 28 (or any other pressure source used for
`
`another function) to operate piston 45 of double-acting cylinder 46 (red). Ex. 1102
`
`at 1:37-41; 2:39-41; 2:55-61; 3:57-62. Piston 45 is connected to spool 20 (blue) of
`
`main control valve 16, which regulates the flow of another fluid (yellow) from
`
`cavity 25 to drain 26. Ex. 1102 at 1:37-43; 2:14-35; 2:56-57. A feedback spring 75
`
`(gray) links movements of piston 45 with those of spool 27. Ex. 1102 at 3:41-65.
`
`B.
`
`Eggers
`
`Eggers discloses valve devices as illustrated below.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1104, Fig. 1 (highlighted); Ex. 1105, ¶20.
`
`The disclosed device includes valve 1 with slide 2 (blue) for limiting a fluid
`
`flow (yellow), operated by a control device. Ex. 1104 at 4:18-21. The control
`
`device includes a second valve (orange) including control slide 16, which regulates
`
`flow of a second fluid (compressed air; green) supplied through cutout 10 using a
`
`pair of control pistons 9 capable of covering lines 7 and 8 leading to pneumatic
`
`piston drive 6 (red). Ex. 1104 at 4:21-25. Piston 5 connects with valve 1 via rod 3.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1104 at 4:18-20. An electric stepper motor 15 (purple) actuates control pistons
`
`9 through rod 11, roller 12, and cable 14. Ex. 1104 at 5:1-12.
`
`Motor 15 responds to electrical signals by winding cable 14, pulling control
`
`rod 11 and control pistons 9 downward, which covers line 7 and opens line 8 to
`
`fluid source 10. Ex. 1104 at 5:7-14. Increased fluid pressure on the bottom surface
`
`of piston 5 drives the piston upward, opening valve 1. Ex. 1104 at 5:12-15.
`
`Opposite control movements by motor 15 unwind cable 14, moving control pistons
`
`9 upward and causing increased fluid pressure on the top surface of piston 5 via
`
`line 7, which drives the piston downward and closes valve 1. See Ex. 1104 at 6:1-5.
`
`Working rod 3 of piston 5 (red) connects to feedback arm 4 (gray), which
`
`connects with cable pull 14. Ex. 1104 at 5:20-25. As piston 5 moves (e.g., upward
`
`to open valve 1), “the working rod 3 and the arm 4 which is connected to it move
`
`upward, and therefore some of this movement is transmitted to the pair 9 of control
`
`pistons by means of the roller 12 and the cable pull 14. The pair of control pistons
`
`is adjusted in the sense that the new pressure ratios in the working cylinder attempt
`
`to reverse the original actuating movement.” Ex. 1104 at 5:20-25.
`
`C. Oleksiewicz
`
`Oleksiewicz discloses a “controllable porting apparatus for an exhaust gas
`
`recirculation (EGR) system” that merges two sources of flow into one outflow
`
`stream and includes “a valve of such configuration that the force of the pressurized
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`flow from one bank acting upon one surface thereof effectively cancels out the
`
`opposed force of the pressurized flow from the other bank acting upon an opposing
`
`surface thereof.” Ex. 1107 at 1:4-14.
`
`Exhaust gas leaves cylinders 11 and 13 via exhaust manifolds 22, which feed
`
`first and second passages 18 and 20. Ex. 1107 at 2:10-20. Exhaust gas recirculates
`
`through EGR valve 40 and passage 17 into the intake manifold 15, as shown
`
`below. Ex. 1107 at 2:21-27.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1107, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Oleksiewicz discloses that balanced flow EGR valve 40 includes valve 50
`
`“adapted for use with a linear actuator 52, such as a solenoid” (purple). Ex. 1107 at
`
`2:52-54. Linear actuator 52 applies force that can open valve 50 in response to
`
`signals from electronic control unit 25. Ex. 1107 at 3:66–4:3. Valve 50 regulates
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`flow of exhaust gas (yellow) through a flow path including two inlets 18 and 20
`
`and a single outlet connected to passage 17. Ex. 1107 at 2:48-58. Stem 54 engages
`
`linear actuator 52, first valve body 60, and second valve body 70 (all blue). Ex.
`
`1107 at 2:62–3:9.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1107, Fig. 2 (highlighted); Ex. 1105, ¶21.
`
`
`
`Valve bodies 60 and 70 engage inlet ports 62 and 72, respectively, and the
`
`ports and valve bodies may be of identical size. Ex. 1107 at 2:62–3:16.
`
`Oleksiewicz discloses that exhaust pressure applied against tip 66 of first valve
`
`body 60 will be compensated for by the exhaust pressure applied against inner
`
`surface 82 of second valve body 70, “the valve 50 thus remaining balanced
`
`between the opposing forces acting thereupon.” Ex. 1107 at 3:60-66.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) around November 17,
`
`2000, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or
`
`equivalent, with at least five years of professional work experience in the design of
`
`hydraulic and/or pneumatic devices. Superior experience or qualifications in
`
`education or experience could compensate for a deficit in the other. Ex. 1105, ¶5.
`
`VI.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms receive their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light
`
`of the specification during IPR proceedings. 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Petitioner
`
`proposes the constructions below under the BRI standard.3 At this stage, Petitioner
`
`submits that further terms may receive their ordinary meanings under the BRI
`
`standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“First fluid” and “second fluid” should be construed to mean two
`separate fluids.
`
`Claim 12 uses the terms “first fluid” and “second fluid” with reference to
`
`fluids regulated by a flow-regulating valve and a directional valve, respectively.
`
`
`3
`Petitioner reserves the right to propose different constructions in
`
`proceedings that apply a different standard.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’821 patent discloses specific examples of fluids that include a gas or
`
`liquid. E.g., Ex. 1101 at Abstract (describing fluids including “engine exhaust gas”
`
`and “engine oil”). A POSITA would have been familiar with the term “fluid” and
`
`similarly would have understood that term to indicate a substance capable of
`
`flowing, including liquids and gases. Ex. 1105, ¶10. Accordingly, “fluid” should be
`
`read to include at least liquids and gases.
`
`Petitioner submits that “first fluid” and “second fluid” should be interpreted
`
`to mean two separate fluids and should not be construed to require two different
`
`types of fluid.
`
`The’821 patent discloses an embodiment with a first fluid (exhaust gas) and
`
`a second fluid (oil) occupying separate flow paths within the valve assembly. The
`
`disclosed exhaust gas (yellow) flows from inlet passages 30, 32 to outlet 34 within
`
`housing 12, controlled by dual-poppet head body 36. Ex. 1101 at 3:61–4:19.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 2 (highlighted); Ex. 1105, ¶18. The oil (green) flows from supply 76
`
`to tank port 78 via various fluid channels through the valve assembly, regulated by
`
`spool 82. Ex. 1101 at 4:28-56; Figs. 1-2. Flow paths for exhaust gas (yellow) and
`
`oil (green) in the disclosed valve assembly are thus separate and do not
`
`commingle, each with their own source and exit points. Ex. 1105, ¶11.
`
`Furthermore, while the exemplary first and second fluids are different types
`
`of fluids, the ’821 patent never requires different types of fluids. Rather, the
`
`specification makes clear that the invention is not so limited and can be used for
`
`“regulating not only flows of exhaust, but other fluid flows or mechanical
`
`movements that are independent of the source of fluid pressure for operating the
`
`valve assembly.” Ex. 1101 at 6:61–7:3 (emphases added). Accordingly, the first
`
`fluid can be any fluid, without limitation, so long as the regulated first fluid is
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`separate from the second fluid that operates the valve assembly. Ex. 1105, ¶12.
`
`Elsewhere, the specification underscores this point by defining the technical field
`
`as a valve assembly that regulates “flow of a fluid . . . by controlling the flow of a
`
`separate working fluid responsive to an electrical control signal.” Ex. 1101 at
`
`1:11-13 (emphasis added).
`
`“First fluid” and “second fluid” therefore should be interpreted to mean two
`
`separate fluids and at least should not be construed to require two different types of
`
`fluid.
`
`B.
`
`If limiting, a “proportional” valve should be interpreted to mean
`a valve that moves in proportion with an input.
`
`The preamble of claim 20 recites a “proportional” control valve. Ex. 1101 at
`
`9:23. “Proportional” should not be construed as a substantive claim limitation. The
`
`body of claim 20 recites numerous structures that define a functionally complete
`
`valve assembly. Ex. 1105, ¶16. In addition, “proportional” provides no antecedent
`
`basis for any claim term, and the applicant did not clearly rely on the term to
`
`distinguish prior art during prosecution, further indicating that the preamble is not
`
`limiting. Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, “proportional” should not be construed as a
`
`substantive limitation.
`
`If considered limiting, a “proportional” valve should be construed to mean
`
`“a valve that moves in proportion with an input.” According to the specification,
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`the disclosed valve assemblies can regulate valve position in a manner
`
`“proportional to the control signal” or “proportional to the change in the solenoid
`
`actuating force.” Ex. 1101 at 1:53-55, 6:20-23. A POSITA reading the ’821 patent
`
`would have understood a “control signal” and a “solenoid actuating force” each to
`
`be a type of input that can be used for controlling valve position. Ex. 1105, ¶17.
`
`Those disclosures align with the ordinary understanding of a “proportional”
`
`valve in the art. A POSITA would have been familiar with proportional valves and
`
`would have known that such valves are configured to move in proportion with an
`
`input (such as an electrical control signal or a solenoid force), such that an input of
`
`greater or lesser magnitude results in valve movements of proportionally greater or
`
`lesser magnitude, respectively. Ex. 1105, ¶17.
`
`In summary, if limiting, “proportional” should be construed to indicate “a
`
`valve that moves in proportion with an input.”
`
` GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`VII.
`
`As detailed below, claims 12-22 of the ’821 patent are unpatentable over the
`
`prior art.
`
`A. The same or substantially the same prior art and arguments were
`not previously presented to the Office.
`
`1. Martin
`
`Regarding Martin, this petition advances new arguments and new prior art
`
`that have not been previously presented to the Office. As noted, Martin was before
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`the Examiner during the ’821 patent’s brief prosecution. In addressing Martin,
`
`however, the Examiner acknowledged that Martin discloses valves having the
`
`same features recited in the claims of the ’821 patent, including “electrical
`
`actuators, a directional valve, actuator and flow regulating valve,” while declining
`
`to explain what, if anything, distinguished Martin from the claims. See Ex. 1106 at
`
`PP0057.
`
`Thus, while Martin was technically before the Examiner, the prosecution
`
`record contains scant analysis of patentability over Martin and certainly does not
`
`demonstrate that the in-depth analyses and arguments regarding Martin in this
`
`petition were previously presented or considered. Nor has the Office previously
`
`considered the new evidence, including expert testimony and additional references,
`
`presented with Martin here. Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. INO Therapeutics, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00889, Paper No. 14, at 9-10 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2015). In light of those
`
`new arguments and new evidence, and the unique inter partes nature of IPR
`
`proceedings compared to ex parte prosecution, Petitioner submits that the grounds
`
`based on Martin should not be rejected on the basis that Martin was cited during
`
`prosecution. See Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`00486, Paper No. 10, at 15 (PTAB July 15, 2015).
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Eggers
`
`Regarding grounds based on Eggers, neither the same prior art nor the same
`
`arguments have been presented before. Eggers was not cited or otherwise
`
`presented to the Examiner during substantive prosecution and does not appear on
`
`the face of the ’821 patent.
`
`The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability on March 13, 2003, never
`
`having identified, received, or otherwise considered Eggers as applied to the
`
`allowed claims. See Ex. 1106 at PP0051-PP0059.
`
`It was not until almost five months later, after payment of the issue fee and
`
`on the day the ’821 patent issued, that the applicant purported to disclose Eggers to
`
`the Examiner. Ex. 1106 at PP0074-0079. By then, the Examiner had long since lost
`
`jurisdiction over the application. MPEP § 1305 (8th Ed., Rev. 1) (Feb. 2003).
`
`Furthermore, because the issue fee had been paid, the application could not be
`
`withdrawn from issue for the Examiner to consider the late-filed IDS, see 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.313(b)-(c) (listing reasons for withdrawing from issue after issue fee
`
`payment), particularly since no petition to do so was even filed, much less
`
`“received and granted” before the issue date, 37 C.F.R. § 1.313(d); see also