`
`
`
`IPR2016-00213, Paper No. 46
`IPR2016-00295, Paper No. 38
`May 11, 2017
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FPUSA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M-I, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: April 24, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JAMES A. TARTAL, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, April
`24, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOUGLAS F. STEWART, ESQ.
`Bracewell
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`
`And
`
`BRAD Y. CHIN, ESQ.
`KEVIN R. TAMM, ESQ.
`ANDREW W. ZEVE, ESQ.
`Bracewell
`711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002-2770
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BARRY J. SCHINDLER, ESQ.
`Greenberg Traurig
`500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
`Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-0677
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`AMY L. KRAMER, ESQ.
`Greenberg Traurig
`The Tabor Center
`1200-17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`
`and
`
`DWAYNE L. MASON, ESQ.
`Greenberg Traurig
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE TARTAL: Please be seated. Good afternoon
`and welcome. We are here for a final hearing in two separate
`inter partes review cases. Both are captioned FPUSA, LLC,
`Petitioner, vs. M-I LLC, Patent Owner. The first case is
`IPR2016-00213, concerning U.S. patent 9,004,288 B2; and the
`second case is IPR2016-00295, concerning U.S. patent 9,074,440
`B2.
`
`First let me begin by introducing the panel. I am joined
`by Judge DeFranco and Judge Goodson, both remotely, and I am
`Judge Tartal. If we could begin with the parties' appearances,
`please. Who do we have today representing Petitioner?
`MR. STEWART: Your Honor, Doug Stewart from
`Bracewell.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Welcome.
`And on behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. SCHINDLER: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Barry Schindler from the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, and with
`me is Amy Kramer from my firm.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Welcome today.
`We set forth the procedure for today's hearing in our
`trial order, and as a reminder, each party will have 60 minutes of
`total time to present arguments in both cases. Petitioner has the
`burden of proof and will go first. Our understanding is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`Petitioner will open jointly for both cases; Patent Owner will then
`present opposition arguments jointly for both cases; and then, to
`the extent Petitioner reserves time, Petitioner will present
`arguments in reply jointly for both cases.
`Are there any questions in that regard, Counsel?
`MR. STEWART: No, Your Honor.
`MR. SCHINDLER: Yes, Your Honor, just one
`question. Judge DeFranco, is he -- I don't see him on a screen.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Judge DeFranco is by
`teleconference.
`MR. SCHINDLER: Okay, that's fine. Judge Goodson,
`I'm glad to see you, but you are on one, two, three, four, screens.
`So I just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing it.
`JUDGE TARTAL: No, so he is on by teleconference
`without video connection.
`MR. SCHINDLER: Can he see the PowerPoint, can he
`see that?
`JUDGE TARTAL: We have -- he cannot see -- and this
`goes for the remote locations as well -- typically the camera
`doesn't capture what's shown on the display screen here, but the
`presentations are submitted ahead of time, and so that's why we
`ask when that when you are doing your presentation, that you
`clearly identify what slide or what screen or what demonstrative
`you're referring to, because for those who are remote, they may
`not otherwise be aware of what document you're pointing to.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`MR. SCHINDLER: Great. Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE DEFRANCO: Counsel, this is Judge
`DeFranco. To make it clear, I am on the phone and I am listening
`and I do have your demonstratives in front of me.
`MR. SCHINDLER: Wonderful. Thank you.
`MR. STEWART: Your Honor, just one point. We
`have some slides up. It appears that the version that we have up
`on the screen is an older version that has the same changes that
`were made pursuant to the conference with opposing counsel, but
`they are missing the numbers. So I will do my best to refer to
`them as we kind of go along.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Okay. That would be helpful for
`the record as well as for the judges participating, so we are able to
`follow when we are referring back to it.
`So reiterating what I basically just said, Judges
`DeFranco and Goodson are attending remotely and have copies of
`the relevant materials, but may not be able to view the images
`that are projected here in Alexandria, so for clarity in the
`transcript, when you refer to an exhibit on the screen, please state
`for the record the exhibit and page number, or for demonstratives,
`the slide number to which you are referring.
`We ask and remind the parties that under no
`circumstances are you to interrupt the other party while that party
`is presenting its arguments and demonstratives.
`Are there any questions on behalf of Patent Owner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`MR. SCHINDLER: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Any questions on behalf of
`Petitioner?
`MR. STEWART: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Petitioner, is there a particular
`amount of the 60 minutes that you would ask to reserve for your
`response?
`MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve 20 minutes.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Okay. Counsel, you may begin
`when you're ready.
`MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honors. Good
`afternoon.
`We're here today on these two IPRs, the '288 patent and
`the '440 patent. For simplicity, I am going to start with the '288
`patent and work through the various references and the claim
`limitations from the '288. The '440, which is a continuation of the
`'288, has many of the same limitations, so that argument will be a
`little bit truncated.
`Additionally, I am going to focus on a handful of the
`independent claims. I believe that the dependent claims basically
`rise or fall with the independent claims. I don't believe either
`party has really taken much issue with the scope of the dependent
`claims being different.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`The technology that we're talking about here are
`basically simple mechanical systems for separating liquids and
`solids, and specifically the use of a shaker in conjunction with a
`vacuum system, and in some embodiments and some claims, the
`use of a degassing chamber. This technology is used in a variety
`of industries where it is necessary to separate liquids and solids.
`Your Honor, may I ask a question? Is it possible to
`have the clock turned on?
`JUDGE TARTAL: Yes.
`MR. SCHINDLER: You shouldn't have asked.
`MR. STEWART: I should have just kept going?
`JUDGE TARTAL: I had the clock running on my desk,
`but for your convenience, I can --
`MR. SCHINDLER: Yes.
`MR. STEWART: I apologize. I left my watch at home.
`MR. SCHINDLER: I have got three of them.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Hold on, just a minute.
`MR. STEWART: Great, thank you.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Certainly.
`MR. STEWART: So, Your Honor, I will start with the
`102 references, that would be the Derrick reference and the
`Vasshus reference. Starting with the '288 patent, claim 1, one
`correction on this slide -- and I am now on the second slide of the
`deck for Judge DeFranco's benefit -- it says there paragraph 78 at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`the top, and that should actually refer to paragraph 79. I
`apologize for the typo.
`In terms of this claim and the Derrick reference, there's
`not really a dispute as to the first three claim limitations. The
`first limitation is introducing a slurry to a shaker, which Derrick
`clearly discloses. The second is flowing the -- and we have got a
`little animation here as well that you can see the -- in the figure,
`the vibratory screen --
`JUDGE GOODSON: Counsel, before you dive into the
`grounds here, could I ask a couple of claim construction
`questions? I think this might be a good time to do that if it's
`okay.
`
`MR. STEWART: Sure.
`JUDGE GOODSON: The first question I have is about
`"shaker." The Patent Owner proposed a construction of that to
`mean "vibratory separator used to remove cuttings and other solid
`particles from drilling fluid used in the oil and gas industry," and
`Petitioner's reply was that that construction was unduly narrow
`because it's -- it's narrowed to a specific industry, and shakers
`have applicability in many industries.
`What about the first part of Patent Owner's construction,
`would the Petitioner object to a construction that a shaker means
`a vibratory separator?
`MR. STEWART: No, Your Honor. I believe that's
`what a shaker is. It is a vibratory separator. We did not propose
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`a construction in our petition because it's commonly understood
`to be a vibratory separator, but as we explained in our reply brief,
`we do believe going beyond that would be unduly narrowing the
`scope of the claim, particularly since the claim refers to it as a
`shaker.
`
`JUDGE GOODSON: Okay. The other term I wanted
`to ask about is "degassing chamber." The Petitioner's proposed
`construction there is that it includes any chamber under at least
`partial vacuum which separates gas from liquids, and I'm
`wondering why it has to be under at least a partial vacuum.
`MR. STEWART: Your Honor, the position taken in the
`underlying litigation was that a degassing chamber was any
`chamber that could separate gas and liquid. I agree that that
`additional limitation of partial vacuum doesn't really seem
`necessary. There are a variety of ways that you can separate gas
`and liquid. Certainly applying a vacuum is one of them, applying
`some sort of pressure differential is one of those methods, but
`there are other ways. So I would propose that that is unduly
`narrow as well.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Okay. That was your
`construction, though, right, that it has to be under at least a partial
`vacuum?
`MR. STEWART: Well, in this case what we're talking
`about is, for the purposes of the references, that the degassing
`chambers are under partial vacuum, so -- but we didn't -- I don't
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`believe we proposed a construction of "degassing chamber"
`specifically in our petition.
`I apologize, Your Honor. I'm getting confused with the
`District Court litigation which I was also involved in.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Yeah, I am looking on page 13 of
`your petition in the '213 IPR, and I was just reading the
`construction that you proposed there, so that was the source of
`my question.
`MR. STEWART: Oh, I see. Your Honor, I apologize.
`I believe that was not adopted by the Board in initiating the
`proceeding, which may be the source of my confusion, but
`certainly for purposes of the references that we have here, there is
`a vacuum applied to the degassing chamber elements, although
`generally speaking, it's true that the degassing chamber could
`occur by a variety of methods. That's perhaps a litigation-based
`construction, but for purposes of these references, it seems that a
`vacuum would be necessary.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Okay, thank you.
`MR. STEWART: Okay. So turning back to Derrick,
`claim 1, the next claim limitation, there's a typo there, but it
`should be "flowing the slurry over the first screen." You can see
`there's an inlet 222 to the left of the screen panels, and that's the
`inlet through which the slurry is presented to the screens.
`There's a first pressure differential that is applied to the
`first screen, which would be the green screen, and we've
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`highlighted that in blue, where the pressure differential is applied,
`and that's by virtue of a vacuum or suction chamber.
`The last element is controlling air flow under at least a
`portion of the first screen to prevent stalling of the slurry on the
`screen, and this is where we get to a dispute, but as to this last
`element, during prosecution of the '288 patent, M-I did
`acknowledge and admit that Derrick disclosed controlling air
`flow, and that was Exhibit 1011, 1-0-1-1, on page 8, which is an
`office action response from November 12th, 2014.
`And in that case, M-I did acknowledge that Derrick
`discloses controlling air flow; however, they went on to argue
`that it controlled air flow consistent with one specific
`embodiment disclosed in the '288 patent, and that is the same
`embodiment that is the subject of the Patent Owner's expert
`declaration, Mr. Palmer's declaration, paragraph 29, which
`focuses on an embodiment, which is described at paragraph 44 of
`Derrick, where a positive pressure is applied to unclog the screens
`after a vacuum has been applied.
`But that disclosure of the single embodiment, which
`was relied upon by the Patent Owner to distinguish Derrick, is not
`the only embodiment in Derrick, and Derrick goes on to describe
`other embodiments which specifically accomplish the same
`objective of the '288 patent, claim 1, and specifically paragraphs
`69 and 79 of that reference are dispositive of this issue and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`contradicts Mr. Palmer's assertion that positive pressure must be
`applied to unclog the screens.
`Specifically, paragraph 69 describes "intermittently
`applying a greater suction and a lesser suction." This is at the top
`of page 7 of the Derrick reference. It's the end of paragraph 69.
`It says, "Intermittently applying a greater suction and a lesser
`suction by intermittently venting the chamber to produce periods
`of lesser suction." In other words, the screens are continuously
`under vacuum, there is no positive pressure applied to unclog the
`screens, and that is the exact scope of the claim and the exact
`disclosure that is made in the '288 patent.
`Similarly, paragraph 79 of the Derrick reference, which
`is at the bottom of page 8, left-hand column, the claim there -- the
`specification there talks about the alternate application of suction
`and release of suction, which is referred to as being intermittent,
`and that is to cause coarse particles to have liquid and fine
`particles withdrawn therefrom, and coarse particles are thereafter
`conveyed off the vibratory screening machine.
`So this concept of applying a variety of vacuum
`pressures, not positive pressure blowing out but vacuum pressure,
`suction control, is clearly disclosed in Derrick, and it is identical
`to what's set forth in the '288 patent; specifically, the concept of
`toggling, which is found in the '288 patent at column 6, lines 54
`to 56. That is the concept that is claimed and set forth in the '288
`patent, is intermittent application of suction to reduce stalling.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`Now, there's some question about whether or not -- I
`believe M-I's position would be that there's some question as to
`whether or not Derrick's objective was to prevent stalling, but that
`is the object Derrick, because Derrick is a patent that is directed
`to the conveyance of slurry across the screens. That's set forth in
`the abstract. The abstract specifically says that it's a method and
`apparatus for screening of slurry in which the slurry is vibrated
`and conveyed across a screen.
`So the goal here of Derrick is to have slurry enter one
`end of the system, be passed along the series of screens,
`maximize the withdrawal of fluid, and then pass forward to be
`conveyed to -- in the case of paragraph 79, into an oversized
`container, which is referred to in the specification.
`Now, this concept, this idea, was necessary because
`some of the prior art systems ran into some problems;
`specifically, the '288 patent talks about a prior art reference to
`Hensley, where there was a screen under the entire system that
`was under vacuum, and that caused the stalling of material on the
`screen, which resulted in the slurry being held up and not being
`able to be conveyed.
`So Derrick and the '288 patent are addressing the same
`problem, and Derrick disclosed techniques that are identical to
`those in the '288 patent, which the examiner was not made aware
`of in the context of overcoming that Derrick rejection.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`Additional parts of Derrick that are helpful in this
`regard are paragraph 77, which talks about the fact that the
`operator of the system can vary the periods of application of
`suction, as well as paragraph 81, which describes how the suction
`period may be adjusted for any desired length of time. So there is
`ample disclosure in Derrick about the application of intermittent
`suction to prevent stalling of the slurry on the screen.
`The next few slides are simply another reference to this
`where it discloses some of these citations that I have referred to,
`so I'll just fast-forward through those, and turn to the Vasshus
`reference as it relates to claim 16.
`Claim 16 is a system claim. Claim 1 was a method
`claim. In this case, the Vasshus system is described as having a
`first screen having an upper side and a lower side, consistent with
`the first element of claim 16. That would be the green screen or
`the green item there in the animation. And there's also a sieving
`apparatus, which is the yellow portion, which is resting on top in
`item 7, which is a supply channel.
`There's a pressure differential generator, which is a
`vacuum pump, and there's a vacuum applied through the suction
`nozzles, which are identified in blue, and the vacuum is applied to
`those suction nozzles to create a pressure differential, which
`applies to the green portion, which is the first screen.
`The third element of claim 16 requires a sump. The
`sump is the blue portion which underlies the screen, that is, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`collection basin, the chamber into which the fluid falls when the
`vacuum is turned on.
`And then the last element is a degassing chamber, and a
`degassing chamber is -- that would be element number 5, which
`is the item on the right-hand side of this figure. The item on the
`left is the sieving unit or the separation unit.
`Now, as to this -- as to this reference, one of the
`arguments that M-I makes is that this is not a shaker, and
`specifically they make that argument because in this particular
`embodiment, in the figure, item 13, which is the first screen, is a
`rotating sieving member, but Vasshus clearly discloses additional
`embodiments, which would be vibratory shakers consistent with
`common understanding in the industry.
`Specifically, there's a portion of the spec, column 5,
`lines 9 to 15, in which it describes that the endless sieving
`element, 13, which is the green part, could be replaced by a fixed
`sieving element, and that fixed sieving element could be -- could
`be vibrated or oscillated using some sort of mechanism. So it
`describes the fixed sieving with oscillation or vibration, which is
`the definition of a shaker.
`The second issue that is brought up by M-I about this
`reference is that the second element, which describes the pressure
`differential, pulling of a pressure through the first screen with
`respect to the second screen, but not with regard to the second
`screen -- so, in other words, one screen has to be under pressure
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`and a second screen has to be under a different pressure -- M-I
`argues that that's not present here.
`Claim 16, by its language, requires that the first screen
`have a pressure and that the second screen could have, for
`example, atmospheric pressure, no vacuum. And as the Board
`acknowledged in granting the petition, Vasshus states that
`another -- another option here would be present in Figure --
`because of -- in Figure 1, the sieving element 9, which is on the
`left-hand side of the figure, in part 3, that is a fixed sieving
`element which is open to the atmosphere. There is no suction
`under that -- under that portion of the -- of the device.
`So in Figure 4, the fluid passes through 9, it comes in to
`collection chamber 7, which is that portion on the left, it falls
`onto sieving element 9, which feeds by gravity down to the
`bottom of the tank, and then the remainder falls onto the green
`endless sieving member, where it is subject to the vacuum forces.
`This is set forth clearly at column 5, lines 40 to 42, of
`the Vasshus reference, where it describes that the supply portion
`7, which is there on the left, is not enclosed by ceiling plate 30.
`So sealing plate 30 is a metal plate which would cover the
`right-hand portion of the device. And sieving device 9 is,
`therefore, open to the atmospheric pressure. There is no vacuum
`applied underneath it, so there is no pressure differential between
`the area above and the area below fixed sieving member -- fixed
`sieving device number 9. So vacuum is applied by 20 under
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`element 13, and that's necessarily going to be different than the
`atmospheric pressure, which is present under fixed sieving
`element 9.
`Turning next to some 103 combinations, this would
`be -- the first combinations to talk about would be with regard to
`Ennis being combined with -- there are three references, Logue,
`Riedel, and Lee, that we will walk through. So this the '288
`patent, claim 1. And in this case, Ennis discloses a plurality of
`screens, panels, which are identified here in the figure, for
`purposes of introducing a slurry to the shaker. The slurry --
`again, a typo here in claim 1 -- is flowed over the first screen, and
`then a pressure differential is applied via the vacuum chamber
`there at the back end of the device.
`In terms of controlling air flow, the -- in this particular
`reference, in Ennis, the air flow is constant, so whereas the
`Hensley device had a constant pressure applied to a screen under
`the entire structure, which was the prior art identified in the
`specification of the '288, in the Ennis reference, the vacuum is
`applied under only a portion of the screen.
`But in order to combine it to get a 103 combination, one
`would look to Ennis, because the -- would look to Logue, because
`the problem of Ennis is going to be the same as the problem of
`Hensley, which is that under a constant pressure, there will
`eventually be a build-up of material that's unable to move, and
`that will prevent the conveyance of slurry through the apparatus.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`And so Logue provides the intermittent suction that would be
`applied to modulate the application of the vacuum.
`And so what Logue describes is a series of valves,
`which are manipulated by two cams, and then there are two
`passages. One is a suction passage, which is -- creates vacuum,
`and then there is an atmospheric or low-pressure opening 42,
`which provides atmospheric pressure to be brought into the
`system.
`
`Lee is another combination with Ennis. These are the
`same -- the same kind of concepts. There is basically a control
`system in Lee that allows you to adjust the pressure along this
`foraminous medium, which is a screening sieving device, and
`there are a series of screens underneath that into which fluid
`could be captured, and there is a mechanism to adjust these
`valves to create a situation where you have control of where the
`vacuum is being applied, and you can use that -- those valves to
`adjust the vacuum under the screen, under the endless sieving
`member there, to allow for the suction into the compartment.
`And then the third reference that one could combine
`with Ennis is this concept from a -- an older patent, the same
`concept. There's a vacuum pump, which is 19 in the figure,
`Figure 1, and there's a valve 22, which is in conduit and can be
`manipulated to discontinuously operate to effect the loosening of
`the bottom screen, to clean the screen.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`So the point is that these references establish that it's a
`well-known concept to utilize intermittent vacuum, the
`application of discontinuous vacuum, intermittent vacuum, of
`different forces to modulate the flow of material across a screen
`and to prevent stalling or clogging or anything of that nature.
`It's worth noting that M-I's argument in the context of
`this series of combinations is that, first, the slurry referred to in
`Ennis is not a slurry according to the '288 because Ennis is
`directed to dewatering. There was some construction or some
`evaluation of that by the Board in granting the petition and
`specifically reference to column 1 of Ennis, lines 12 to 22, where
`it describes that the techniques of Ennis can be applied to a
`variety of different industries, different materials, and this
`concept, this disclosure of Ennis, can be applied equally to the oil
`and gas industry.
`It's also --
`JUDGE GOODSON: Counsel, can I just ask, has there
`been any evidence developed in the trial since institution on the
`obviousness of using this combination for a slurry that has a
`drilling fluid component?
`MR. STEWART: Your Honor, we have -- our expert
`declaration, Peter Matthews, who has described the use of this
`combination and of Ennis for a slurry that would be of the oil and
`gas variety, specifically that this technology is applicable to a
`wide variety.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`It's worth noting also that Derrick, who we just spoke
`about and the first reference, which is very clearly from the oil
`and gas industry, is a co-inventor on Ennis. So this technology
`spans across industries, and it is useful in a variety of different
`technical fields. If the objective is to separate solids from liquids,
`this is the technique that people use.
`JUDGE GOODSON: You -- when you said that -- that
`Petitioner's expert discussed this in the declaration, there was
`only one declaration, correct? There was no additional --
`MR. STEWART: Correct.
`JUDGE GOODSON: -- declaration.
`MR. STEWART: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GOODSON: And if you could -- well, you
`don't have to do this right now, but if you get a moment, if you
`could point me to the specific paragraph in the Matthews
`declaration that you're referring to, I would appreciate it.
`MR. STEWART: Okay. We will do that, and I will get
`it to you in the reply portion.
`Just another point that is worth describing about Ennis
`is that we cite here in the slides to a textbook -- this was cited in a
`footnote in our petition, Shale Shakers and Fluid Drilling
`Systems, and the point that we were trying to make here is that it's
`commonly understood and well understood that a degassing
`chamber follows from a -- follows from a shaker.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`That's a commonly understood concept, that you need to
`have a degassing chamber immediately after a shaker. So this --
`this concept of applying a shaker together with a degassing
`chamber, which is in claim 16, is something that's commonly
`understood.
`So when you turn to the combinations, the 103
`combinations for claim 16, we have got this Ennis reference,
`again, which can be combined with that Logue reference. Now,
`the Logue reference has a chamber 40, which is highlighted here
`in black, so it's a bit hard to see -- I apologize for that -- and it's
`connected via that cam and valve system to suction passage 41,
`and the suction -- the low-pressure opening 42 is on the
`right-hand side. That's operated by a different valve and cam
`system.
`
`And so what happens is the compartment up at the top,
`15a, fills with fluid and with entrained and other gases, and that
`fluid flows down through 22a, which is this conduit, into chamber
`40. And when the cam opens the valve, the fluid is flushed out
`because 41 is under vacuum.
`And when the cams have changed, there's an
`opportunity for atmospheric pressure to flow back into the system
`and push the remaining gas that is trailing down conduit 22a back
`out -- through conduit 22a, back up through 15a, and back into
`the atmosphere.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00213 (Patent 9,004,288 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00295 (Patent 9,074,440 B2)
`
`
`So for purposes of claim 16, Ennis provides the other
`elements, which we've already discussed and described, and then
`Logue explains how a degassing chamber would -- would work
`for purposes of maintaining the -- collecting the -- the vapor and
`air.
`
`It's important to note that in the '288 patent, claim 16,
`this is going to be different than the '440 patent, because this
`claim requires that all of the gas -- all of the air vapor and drilling
`fluid flow into the same compartment. That's an important
`distinction for some of the other claims.
`JUDGE GOODSON: So looking at your slide 11 here,
`whatever is in the conduit 22 when the -- the valve is open, I
`guess it's 38, whatever -- everything that's in conduit 22, whether
`it's gas or liquid, it's all going to go out this conduit 4
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
