UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`UNITED LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REFINED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,017,488
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN A. WILHITE, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`UNITED LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REFINED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,017,488
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN A. WILHITE, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`THE PATENT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`IV. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`V.
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`VII. THE ‘488 PATENT
`
`VIII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`8
`
`9
`
`11
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Relevant Field
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM TERMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN REFERENCES DISCLOSE OR SUGGEST ALL OF THE
`ELEMENTS CLAIMED IN THE ‘488 PATENT
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the Prior Art
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Foutsitzis and Allen
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 2-6 and 9-13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Dependent Claims 7-8 and 14-20 are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 by Foutsitzis in view of Allen, and
`further in view of Jansen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`25
`
`25
`
`27
`
`27
`
`35
`
`44
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`XI. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`XII. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT
`
`XIII. JURAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53
`
`53
`
`54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 3 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`I, Benjamin A. Wilhite, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare under penalty
`
`of perjury that the following statements are true and correct:
`
`I.
`
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`1. I have been retained in this matter by United Laboratories International, Inc.
`
`(“ULI”) to provide various opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,017,488. I am being
`
`compensated at my rate of $400 per hour, plus expenses, which is my standard
`
`consulting fee, for my work in this matter. My compensation is not dependent upon
`
`the outcome of this matter. Nor is my compensation dependent upon the outcome of
`
`any related litigation proceedings, the opinions I express, or my testimony. I have
`
`no financial interests in ULI.
`
`2. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is
`
`included as Exhibit 1008. I have never previously signed a protective order or
`
`testified as an expert either at trial, hearing, or deposition, and I have never
`
`previously submitted statements and/or opinions. Therefore, I have no list of cases
`
`during at least the last five years in which I have signed a protective order; have
`
`testified as an expert either at trial, hearing, or deposition; or have submitted
`
`statements and/or opinions.
`
`3. I attended The University of Delaware from 1993 to 1994, and then
`
`transferred to North Carolina State University, where I attended from 1994 to 1997
`
`and received a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering. I then attended the
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 4 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`University of Notre Dame from 1997 to 2003, during which time I received a Ph.D.
`
`in Chemical Engineering. My dissertation was entitled “Pulsing Flow Regime in
`
`Trickle-Bed Reactors: Reactor Performance and Hydrodynamics,” and focused on
`
`Chemical Reaction Engineering and Process Systems. From 2002 to 2005, I was
`
`employed as a post-doctoral research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) where my work focused upon design, testing, and analysis of
`
`microchemical systems. One of the projects I worked on was the demonstration of a
`
`miniature, silicon-based gas-liquid contactor for reacting alkaline hydrogen peroxide
`
`liquid with chlorine gas for the production of singlet-delta oxygen as an energy-
`
`exchange media.
`
`4. From June to August 1995, I was employed as a summer intern with the
`
`DuPont Chemical Company at their Pisgah Forest, NC Medical Imaging Production
`
`Facility (now defunct) in the safety division, responsible for assisting with annual
`
`fire safety compliance inspections. I was an assistant professor at the University of
`
`Connecticut from 2005 to 2010. During that time, as a faculty member of the
`
`Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center, my work focused upon gas-solid catalytic
`
`reactor design for hydrogen production, gas-solid membranes for hydrogen
`
`purification, and gas-solid electrochemical systems for direct fuel conversion to
`
`electricity. Also, I have performed and directed research work funded by Eastman
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 5 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Chemicals Co. (Longview, TX) investigating hydrodynamics and performance of
`
`gas-liquid-solid catalytic reactors.
`
`5. In 2010, I began as an associate professor at Texas A&M University, where I
`
`currently teach. As associate professor at Texas A&M University, I have performed
`
`and directed research work funded by Power+Energy, Inc. (Ivyland, PA) towards
`
`the development of a gas-solid catalytic heat-exchanger microreactor system for the
`
`compact steam reforming of methane to hydrogen and/or synthesis gas. My work
`
`continues to focus on catalytic reactor designs, membrane separations, and process
`
`safety.
`
`6. Further, I have some experience studying and analyzing patents and patent
`
`claims. I am a named inventor on one patent,1 and I am a named inventor on a patent
`
`application.2 Given my experience and expertise in the field, I can speak
`
`authoritatively about what one of ordinary skill in my art would have known, and
`
`when.
`
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 8,298,499 (filed Nov. 3, 2008) entitled “Process Intensification in
`
`Microreactors.”
`
`2 U.S. Patent Application No. 14/896,234 (filed June 4, 2014) entitled
`
`“Polyelectrolyte Multilayer Films for Gas Separation and Purification” (abandoned).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 6 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`II. THE PATENT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`7. Counsel has told me that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 9,017,488
`
`(“the ‘488 patent”), filed on July 16, 2014, as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/333,381 (“the ‘381 application”). I am informed that the ‘488 patent lists Cody
`
`Nath, Barry Baker, and Sean Sears as the inventors and Refined Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“RTI”) as the original assignee. I have also been informed that RTI retains
`
`ownership. The ‘488 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/936,807, which was filed on July 8, 2013, which was itself a continuation-in-part
`
`of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/478,580, which was filed on June 4, 2009 and is
`
`now U.S. Patent No. 8,480,812 (“the ‘812 patent”).
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`8. In performing the analysis that is the subject of my testimony, I reviewed the
`
`‘488 patent and its file history.
`
`9. I have also reviewed:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,480,812 and its file history;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,035,792 to Foutsitzis et al., filed on November 19, 1990
`
`and issued on July 30, 1991 (“Foutsitzis”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,008,764 to Allen filed on July 11, 1975 and issued on
`
`February 22, 1977 (“Allen”);
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 7 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,936,112 to Jansen et al., filed on November 26, 2002 and
`
`issued on August 30, 2005 (“Jansen”);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 13/936,807 and its file history;
`
`• Excerpts from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
`
`(1989, 4th ed.), pp. 420, 585, 771, 1280, 1489, 1498, 1771, 1774, 1981, and
`
`2037.
`
`IV. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`10. I have been retained to opine on whether claims 1-6 and 9-13 of the ‘488
`
`patent are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Foutsitzis in view of Allen
`
`and whether claims 7-8 and 14-20 of the ‘488 patent are rendered obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 by Foutsitzis in view of Allen, and further in view of Jansen. The scope
`
`of my assignment was limited to claims 1-20 of the ‘488 patent and consideration of
`
`the documents enumerated in the Materials Reviewed section above and to
`
`addressing issues concerning § 103, as set forth throughout this Declaration.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`11. Based upon my investigation and analysis, it is my opinion that claims 1-6
`
`and 9-13 of the ‘488 patent are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Foutsitzis
`
`in view of Allen and that claims 7-8 and 14-20 of the ‘488 patent are rendered
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Foutsitzis in view of Allen, and further in view of
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 8 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Jansen. The reasons and bases for my opinions are found throughout this
`
`Declaration.
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`12. I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the law on
`
`patent validity. Attorneys for the petitioner ULI have explained certain legal
`
`principles to me that I have relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`13. The first step in an invalidity analysis is claim construction. Rockwell Int’l
`
`Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The second step in an
`
`invalidity analysis is comparison of the properly construed claims to the prior art.
`
`Id. at 1362-64. A patent claim is invalid over the prior art where it is shown that the
`
`claim is (1) anticipated by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or (ii) obvious pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University, 212
`
`F.3d 1272, 1282-85 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The second step, comparing the properly
`
`construed claims to the prior art, is a question of fact. Heidelberger Druckmaschinen
`
`AG v. Jantscho Commercial Prods., Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`14. “A patent claim is invalid ‘if 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 at the time the invention was made to a [person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”)].’” Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 9 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Activision Blizzard Inc., 926 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) (2006)). “Obviousness ‘is a question of law based on underlying findings
`
`of fact.’” Id. (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Those
`
`underlying findings of fact include (1) ‘the scope and content of the prior art,’ (2)
`
`‘differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,’ (3) ‘the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art,’ and (4) the presence of objective indicia of nonobviousness
`
`such ‘as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,’ and
`
`unexpected results.” Id. at 1379-80 (citations omitted). “In assessing the prior art,
`
`the PTAB also ‘consider[s] whether a PHOSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have
`
`been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Id. at 1380 (citations
`
`omitted).
`
`15. “Prior art” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 103 “refers at least to the statutory
`
`material named in 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Riverwood Int. Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc.,
`
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, to qualify as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes, a reference also must substantively relate to the subject matter of the patent
`
`at issue. Regent Lighting Corp. v. FL Indus., Inc., 60 F.3d 840 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(recognizing that a reference that is not within the inventor’s field of endeavor is too
`
`remote to be considered relevant prior art unless it is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem facing the inventor). The prior art primarily includes references that are
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 10 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. References that are not within the field
`
`of the inventor’s endeavor also may be relied on in patentability determinations, and
`
`thus are described as “analogous art,” when a person of ordinary skill would
`
`reasonably have consulted those references and applied their teachings in seeking a
`
`solution to the problem that the inventor was attempting to solve. Heidelberger, 21
`
`F.3d at 1071.
`
`VII. THE ‘488 PATENT
`
`16. The ‘488 patent is entitled “Process for Removing Hydrocarbons and
`
`Noxious Gasses from Reactors and Media-Packed Equipment.” Ex. 1001 at Front
`
`Cover.3 The underlying application, U.S. Patent Application No. 14/333,381 (“the
`
`’381 application”) was filed on July 16, 2014. Id.
`
`17. According to the Background section of the ‘488 patent, refineries and
`
`chemical plants must perform turnarounds on chemical processing units that use
`
`reactors and other vessels containing packed media.4 Ex. 1001 at 1:14-16. A
`
`turnaround allows for the replacement of catalysts or other media that have lost the
`
`
`3 Ex. 1001 refers to the ‘488 patent.
`
`4 A turnaround in petroleum refining is “the shutdown of a unit after a normal run
`
`for maintenance and repair work, then putting the unit back into operation.” Ex. 1007
`
`at 1981.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 11 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`ability to perform. Id. at 1:16-18. The ‘488 patent discusses several prior art methods
`
`for preparing reactor circuits for safe work.5
`
`18. One prior art method described in the ‘488 patent involves a “hot sweep”
`
`where “the heater in the reactor loop is used to raise the hydrogen stream temperature
`
`levels high enough to strip the heavy hydrocarbons from the catalyst as the hydrogen
`
`compressor circulates the gas.” Ex. 1001 at 2:20-25. The “hot sweep” is followed by
`
`replacing the hydrogen “with nitrogen by repetitively depressurizing the system to
`
`the flare system and pressuring it back up with nitrogen (commonly called a ‘huff
`
`and puff’).” Id. at 2:25-28. “Depending on the design of the compressor, nitrogen
`
`availability and other considerations, the operator may use other gases instead of
`
`nitrogen, including purchased fuel gas (ethane and methane).” Id. at 2:34-37.
`
`19. Another prior art method described in the ‘488 patent is a “wet dump” for
`
`safely removing a contaminated catalyst from a reactor. Ex. 1001 at 2:48-50. “After
`
`the equipment is cooled down, the reactor is filled with water. The catalyst is
`
`subsequently dumped wet, effectively preventing fires and other hazards.” Id. at
`
`2:50-52. Other prior art methods discussed in the ‘488 patent include removing
`
`noxious gases from equipment by purging with an inert gas such as nitrogen as well
`
`
`5 According to the ‘488 patent, “[a]ll equipment in the process circuit can be
`
`collectively referred to as the reactor circuit.” Ex. 1001 at 1:67-2:1.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 12 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`as pressuring a system with nitrogen up to a certain pressure and then venting it
`
`down to a low pressure. Id. at 2:64-3:1.
`
`20. Further, Figure 1 of the ‘488 patent “illustrates the layout of equipment and
`
`the flow of media in a typical cleaning process.” Ex. 1001 at 3:25-26.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1
`
`“As illustrated in FIG. 1, a typical process system includes a feed drum (1), a slow
`
`roll compressor (2), a furnace (3), a reactor (4), heat exchangers (5), a compressor
`
`(6), a separator (7), a low point drain (8), an injection point (9), adjust fin fan
`
`exchanger (10), a sample point (11), and a trim cooler (12).” Ex. 1001 at 7:4-9.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 13 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`21. The ‘488 patent issued with one independent claim (claim 1) and nineteen
`
`dependent claims (claims 2-20). Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
`
`1.
`
`A method for removing a contaminant from a process system,
`comprising the steps of:
`(i) providing a water-free carrier gas source;
`(ii) providing a non-aqueous solvent source;
`(iii) volatizing non-aqueous solvent from the non-aqueous
`solvent source in water-free carrier gas from the carrier
`gas source and delivering the carrier gas containing the
`volatized non-aqueous solvent to the process system
`and
`(iv) removing said contaminant out of said system, wherein a
`substantial amount of said contaminant is dissolved in
`said solvent in a vapor or liquid state as it is being
`removed from said system.
`
`
`VIII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART
`
`A. Relevant Field
`
`22. In my opinion, the field relevant to the invention of the ‘488 patent is
`
`stripping (or removing) hydrocarbons from porous media using a vapor flow
`
`comprised of volatilized solvent(s) and/or carrier gas. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. I also
`
`note that the Applicant disclosed references during prosecution of the ‘381
`
`application, which generally included efforts to remove hydrocarbons from porous
`
`media in the application-specific context of removing paraffin deposits from wells,
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 14 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`enhancing oil recovery procedures using vaporized surfactants, dewaxing producing
`
`formations, cleaning well systems and equipment, providing wellbore fluid for
`
`reducing oil-containing residue, and restoring permeability of a formation. Id. at
`
`Front Cover.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`23. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field as of
`
`June 4, 2009 (“POSA”), would have had at least a B.S. in Chemical, Mechanical, or
`
`Petroleum Engineering. This minimum level of education would provide a
`
`familiarity with the Chemicals Manufacturing Industry, Oil & Gas Processing
`
`Industry, and/or Oil Recovery Industry. Further, a POSA would have at least 3 to 5
`
`years of experience in one or more of the above industries via consulting, research,
`
`or industrial employment. Strength in one of these areas can compensate for a
`
`weakness in another.
`
`24. With over 13 years of experience overseeing research projects related to the
`
`Chemicals and Oil & Gas Industries, I am well acquainted with the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the claimed subject matter pertains and the capabilities
`
`necessary to understand the applicable scientific and engineering principles. In
`
`addition, both as part of my professional experience and especially as a college
`
`professor, I have known and am personally familiar with the abilities of a very large
`
`number of people meeting this level of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 15 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`experience with and am capable of rendering an informed opinion on what the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant field was as of June 4, 2009, and on the validity of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`IX.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM TERMS
`
`25. I have been advised that the first step of assessing the validity of a patent
`
`claim is to interpret or construe the meaning of the words in the claim.
`
`26. I have been advised that in inter partes review proceedings before the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, a patent claim is construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action,
`
`“including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 CFR § 42.100(b).
`
`27. I read the claims as one of ordinary skill in the art. I also reviewed objective
`
`dictionary materials. These materials are consistent with my understanding of the
`
`claims and the specification.
`
`28. Below is a chart summarizing the ULI claim constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`“contaminant”
`
`“process system”
`
`
`
`Construction
`“a foreign or unwanted material”
`
`“equipment used in a series of continuous or regularly
`occurring actions taking place in a predetermined or
`planned manner, such as in oil refining or chemical
`manufacturing, including, but not limited to, various
`devices, vessels, containers, towers, and machines”
`- 16 -
`
`Page 16 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`Construction
`“a gas employed to deliver a solvent including, but not
`limited to, one or more of the following: hydrogen,
`nitrogen, other inert gases, dry gases, and
`hydrocarbons”
`
`“non-aqueous solvent” “a substance, or combination of substances, which
`contains no water, capable of dissolving or dispersing
`one or more other substances”
`
`“a metal container capable of withstanding bursting
`pressures”
`
`“equipment including, but not limited to, one or more of
`the following: a reactor, a catalyst, a compressor, heat
`exchangers, a heater, and piping”
`
`Claim Term
`“carrier gas”
`
`“pressure vessel”
`
`“a reactor circuit used
`in a refining
`hydrotreating process
`and associated
`equipment”
`
`“substantial”
`
`“volatizing”
`
`“at least 50%”
`
`“converting a chemical substance from a liquid or solid
`state to a gaseous or vapor state by the application of
`heat, by reducing pressure, or by a combination of these
`processes. Also known as vaporizing.”
`
`“a gas produced or used in a petroleum processing
`facility”
`
`“a refinery fuel gas such as ethane or methane”
`
`
`“dry gas”
`
`“purchase gas”
`
`
`
`29. Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 7 and 8, of the ‘488 patent
`
`contain the limitation “contaminant.” Ex. 1001 at cols. 9-10. The term
`
`“contaminant” means “a foreign or unwanted material.” This construction of
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Page 17 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`“contaminant” agrees with the specification and claim language of the ‘488 patent.
`
`For example, the specification states as follows:
`
`The disclosed processes may be used to remove organic
`contaminants and noxious gases from a system. Organic
`contaminants may include but are not limited to crude oil and its
`derivatives produced
`through
`the
`refining process, or
`hydrocarbons.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:17-21. Further, dependent claims 7 and 8 also provide insight into the
`
`meaning of “contaminant” as shown by the claim language:
`
`Claim 7: The method of claim 6 wherein said organic contaminant
`comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting
`of crude oil and its derivatives, hydrocarbons and noxious gases.
`* * * * *
`Claim 8: The method of claim 6, wherein said organic contaminant
`is a noxious gas, said noxious gas being at least one member
`selected from the group consisting of hydrogen sulfide, benzene,
`carbon monoxide, and a light end hydrocarbon, said light end
`hydrocarbon being capable of resulting in a positive reading when
`tested for the Lower Explosive Level (or “LEL”).
`
`Additionally, the term “contaminant” was defined in a technical dictionary as “a
`
`foreign or unwanted material.” Ex. 1007 at 420. The term’s definition is also
`
`consistent with the use of this term in multiple catalytic, purification/extraction,
`
`equipment turnaround, and catalyst/adsorbent regeneration processes.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Page 18 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`30. Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 18, of the
`
`‘488 patent contain the limitation “process system.” Ex. 1001 at cols. 9-10. The term
`
`“process system” means “equipment used in a series of continuous or regularly
`
`occurring actions taking place in a predetermined or planned manner, such as in oil
`
`refining or chemical manufacturing, including, but not limited to, various devices,
`
`vessels, containers, towers, and machines.” This construction of “process system”
`
`agrees with the specification and claim language of the ‘488 patent. For example,
`
`the specification explains as follows:
`
`The process system to be cleaned may be a reactor, an absorbent
`chamber containing a molecular sieve, or a pressure vessel. Such
`a process system may contain a medium which may be a catalyst,
`a support material, a molecular sieve or a desiccant. By way of
`example, a reactor circuit used in a refining hydrotreating process
`and associated equipment may be cleaned using the disclosed
`process. Associated equipment may include, for example, a shell
`and tube exchanger, a fired heater, a distillation tower, or an
`interconnecting piping.
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:64-4:6; see also id. at 5:25-40. The specification also provides this
`
`example:
`
`As illustrated in FIG. 1, a typical process system includes a feed
`drum (1), a slow roll compressor (2), a furnace (3), a reactor (4),
`heat exchangers (5), a compressor (6), a separator (7), a low point
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`Page 19 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`drain (8), an injection point (9), adjust fin fan exchanger (10), a
`sample point (11), and a trim cooler (12).
`
`
`Id. at 7:4-9. Furthermore, dependent claims 2 and 3 provide further insight into the
`
`meaning of “process system”:
`
`Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the process system is
`selected from the group consisting of a reactor, an absorbent
`chamber containing a molecular sieve, and a pressure vessel.
`
`
`* * * * *
`
`Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the process system
`comprises a reactor circuit used in a refining hydrotreating process
`and associated equipment.
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, the term “process system” was defined in a technical dictionary as “a
`
`system or series of continuous or regularly occurring actions taking place in a
`
`predetermined or planned manner, for example, as oil refining process or chemical
`
`manufacturing process.” Ex. 1007 at 1498. The term’s definition is also consistent
`
`with the use of this term in multiple catalytic, purification/extraction, equipment
`
`turnaround, and catalyst/adsorbent regeneration processes.
`
`31. Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 4-6, 9, 11, and 18-20, of
`
`the ‘488 patent contain the limitation “carrier gas.” Ex. 1001 at cols. 9-10. The term
`
`“carrier gas” means “a gas employed to deliver a solvent including, but not limited
`
`to, one or more of the following: hydrogen, nitrogen, other inert gases, dry gases,
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`and hydrocarbons.” This construction of “carrier gas” agrees with the specification
`
`and claim language of the ‘488 patent. For example, the specification states as
`
`follows:
`
`…carrier gas such as nitrogen, purchased fuel gas, etc.
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:52-53. The specification also includes the following excerpt:
`
`
`The carrier gas may be nitrogen or other inert gases. Alternatively,
`the carrier gas may be a dry gas produced or used in a petroleum
`processing facility which has the chemical formula CnH2n+2,
`wherein n is an integer greater than 0 but less than 6. Examples of
`such dry gas include ethane or methane (commonly referred to as
`‘purchased fuel gas’ or refinery fuel gas). Other suitable carrier
`gas may include suitable gases that are readily available within a
`refinery or petro-chemical plant, such as hydrogen used in a
`hydrotreating process.
`
`
`Id. at 4:7-16. Further, the specification explains as follows:
`
`
`Alternatively, in the second method, the actual process gas may
`be used as the carrier gas, utilizing the flow inside the process
`equipment to distribute the cleaning agents throughout the
`equipment to clean its internal surfaces.
`
`
`Id. at 4:44-47. The term’s definition is also consistent with the use of this term in
`
`multiple
`
`catalytic,
`
`purification/extraction,
`
`equipment
`
`turnaround,
`
`and
`
`catalyst/adsorbent regeneration processes.
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`Page 21 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`32. Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 10-20, of the ‘488 patent
`
`contain the limitation “non-aqueous solvent.” Ex. 1001 at cols. 9-10. The term “non-
`
`aqueous solvent” means “a substance, or combination of substances, which contains
`
`no water, capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other substances.” This
`
`construction of “non-aqueous solvent” is supported by the specification and claim
`
`language of the ‘488 patent, as well as technical dictionary evidence. Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:59-6:3 (“Solvent systems containing multiple compounds as solvents may also be
`
`used.”); see also id. at 5:41-58; Ex. 1007 at 1280 (defining “nonaqueous” as
`
`“pertaining to a liquid or solution containing no water”) and 1771 (defining
`
`“solvent” as “a usually liquid substance capable of dissolving or dispersing one or
`
`more other substances”).
`
`33. Dependent claim 2 of the ‘488 patent contains the limitation “pressure
`
`vessel.” Ex. 1001 at col. 9. Ex. 1001 at col. 9. The term “pressure vessel” means “a
`
`metal container capable of withstanding bursting pressures.” This construction of
`
`“pressure vessel” is supported by the specification and claim language of the ‘488
`
`patent, as well as technical dictionary evidence. Ex. 1001 at 1:62-66 (“a typical
`
`hydrotreating process unit in a petroleum refinery has a reactor containing a metal
`
`catalyst, a hydrogen compressor, shell and tube heat exchangers, piping and other
`
`miscellaneous pressure vessels.”) and 5:34-37 (“a media packed pressure vessel
`
`containing internal processing equipment or material, including but not limited to
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`Page 22 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`catalyst, support material, molecular sieve or desiccant.”); Ex. 1007 at 1489
`
`(defining “pressure vessel” as “a metal container, generally cylindrical or spheroid,
`
`capable of withstanding bursting pressures”).
`
`34. Dependent claim 3 of the ‘488 patent contains the limitation “a reactor circuit
`
`used in a refining hydrotreating process and associated equipment.” Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`9. The phrase “a reactor circuit used in a refining hydrotreating process and
`
`associated equipment” means “equipment including, but not limited to, one or more
`
`of the following: a reactor, a catalyst, a compressor, heat exchangers, a heater, and
`
`piping.” This construction is supported by the specification and claim language of
`
`the ‘488 patent. Ex. 1001 at 1:60-2:1 (“a typical hydrotreating process unit in a
`
`petroleum refinery has a reactor containing a metal catalyst, a hydrogen compressor,
`
`shell and tube heat exchangers, a heater, air cooled fin tube exchangers, piping and
`
`other miscellaneous pressure vessels. All equipment in the process circuit can be
`
`collectively referred to as the reactor circuit.”); see also id. at 5:37-40.
`
`35. Independent claim 1 of the ‘488 patent contains the limitation “substantial.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 9. The term “substantial” in the context of the ‘488 patent means “at
`
`least 50%.” This construction of “substantial” is supported by the specification of
`
`the ‘488 patent, which includes the following: “For purpose of this disclosure, the
`
`term ‘substantial’ means at least 50%.” Ex. 1001 at 3:63-64.
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`Page 23 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`36. Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claim 9, of the ‘488 patent
`
`contains the limitation “volatizing” or “volatized.” Ex. 1001 at cols. 9-10. The term
`
`“volatizing” means “converting a chemical substance from a liquid or solid state to
`
`a gaseous or vapor state by the application of heat, by reducing pressure, or by a
`
`combination of these processes. Also known as vaporizing.” This construction of
`
`“volatizing” is supported by the specification and claim language of the ‘488 patent,
`
`as well as an objective dictionary source. Ex. 1001 at 3:34-38; Ex. 1007 at 2037 (“the
`
`conversion of a chemical substance from a liquid or solid state to a gaseous or vapor
`
`state by the application of heat, by reducing pressure, or by a combination of these
`
`processes. Also known as vaporization.”).
`
`37. Dependent claim 4 of the ‘488 patent contains the limitation “purchase fuel
`
`gas,” and dependent claim 5 contains the limitation “dry gas.” Ex. 1001 at col. 10.
`
`The term “purchase fuel gas” means “a refinery fuel gas such as ethane or methane.”
`
`The term “dry gas” means “a gas produced or used in a petroleum processing
`
`facility.” These constructions of “purchase fuel gas” and “dry gas” are supported by
`
`the specification and claim language of the ‘488 patent, as well as objective
`
`dictionary sources. Ex. 1001 at 4:7-13 (“the carrier gas may be a dry gas produced
`
`or used in a petroleum processing facility which has the chemical formula CnH2n+2,
`
`where n is an integer greater than 0 but less than 6. Examples of such dry gas include
`
`ethane and methane (commonly referred to as “purchased fuel gas” or refinery fuel
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`Page 24 of 54
`
`ULI EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`gas)”); Ex. 1007 at 585 (defining “dry gas” as “a gas that does not contain fractions
`
`which may easily condense under normal atmospheric conditions, for example,
`
`natural gas with methane and ethane”) and 771 (defining “fuel gas” as “a gaseous
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
