Case IPR2016-01831
`U.S. Patent No. 9,131,803
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`THE KINGSFORD PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CREATIVE SPARK, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01831
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,131,803
`Title: CHARCOAL BRIQUET AND PACKAGED CHARCOAL BRIQUET
`PRODUCT
`Issue Date: September 15, 2015
`
`__________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES G. SPEIGHT, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 1
`
`Creative Spark Exhibit 2021
`The Kingsford Products Co., LLC v. Creative Spark, LLC
`Case IPR2016-01831
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01831
`U.S. Patent No. 9,131,803
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`BASES FOR OPINIONS ................................................................................ 5
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6
`
`IV. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 7
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Experience With Briquetting, Carbonaceous Fuels, And Related
`Technologies ....................................................................................... 12
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 13
`
`A. Anticipation ......................................................................................... 14
`
`B.
`
`Inherency ............................................................................................. 14
`
`C. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 15
`
`D. Written Description And Priority ........................................................ 18
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 18
`
`VII. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`Ingredients Of Charcoal Briquets ........................................................ 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Base Fuels ................................................................................. 19
`
`Binders ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Ignition Aids ............................................................................. 21
`
`Forming Briquets ................................................................................. 21
`
`Physical Properties Of Charcoal Briquets ........................................... 23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01831
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,131,803
`
`D.
`Combustion Of Charcoal Briquets ...................................................... 25
`
`VIII. OPINIONS ..................................................................................................... 28
`
`A. Opinions On Ground 1: Burke, Wulf, And Peters (Claims 1-32) ....... 28
`
`1.
`
`A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Have
`Added Wulf’s Roller-Pressed Grooves To The Briquets
`Described In Burke And Peters................................................. 28
`
`i. Burke and Peters Discouraged The Use Of Grooves For
`Charcoal Briquets. ..................................................................... 29
`
`ii. Roller Pressing Grooves Into Charcoal Briquets Would
`Lead To Briquets That Break Easily. ........................................ 36
`
`2.
`
`Burke, Wulf, And Peters Do Not Meet The Time And
`Temperature Limitations Of The Claims. ................................. 45
`
`i. Burke .................................................................................... 49
`
`ii. Wulf ..................................................................................... 58
`
`iii. Peters .................................................................................. 58
`
`iv. Other References ................................................................ 62
`
`v. Summary Chart ................................................................... 67
`
`3. Wulf Does Not Disclose Several Of The Claimed Groove
`Configurations. .......................................................................... 69
`
`i. Relationship Between Groove Width And Depth ............... 70
`
`ii. Grooves Symmetrical About A Horizontal Plane Through
`The Center Of The Briquet ....................................................... 72
`
`iii. Maximum Groove Depth No Deeper Than 25% Of
`Maximum Briquet Depth .......................................................... 75
`
`4.
`
`There Was A Long-Felt Need For Charcoal Briquets
`Configured To Both Achieve A Cooking Temperature Of
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01831
`U.S. Patent No. 9,131,803
`
`
`
`
`1000ºF Within About 15 Minutes After Ignition And
`Sustain That Cooking Temperature For At Least 15
`Minutes Thereafter. ................................................................... 77
`
`5.
`
`There Was Skepticism That Grooved Charcoal Briquets
`Could Provide Superior
`Ignition And Burning
`Characteristics. .......................................................................... 88
`
`B. Opinions On Ground 3: Saunders II (Claims 1 and 9) ........................ 96
`
`IX. APPENDIX A: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’803
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 99
`
`X. APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, James G. Speight, a resident of Laramie, Wyoming over 18 years of age,
`
`hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of all of the matters about which I testify
`
`in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`Desmarais LLP retained me on behalf of Creative Spark, LLC to
`
`provide my technical opinions and testimony about Claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,131,803 (KNG1001, “the ’803 Patent”). I refer to those claims as the
`
`“challenged claims.” The full text of the challenged claims appears in
`
`Appendix A to my declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this proceeding at my usual
`
`rate of $150/hour and receiving reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course
`
`of my work. My compensation is not contingent in any way on either the opinions
`
`I have reached or the outcome of this case.
`
`II. BASES FOR OPINIONS
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed, analyzed, and relied upon the documents and other
`
`materials listed below in Section III in light of my specialized knowledge provided
`
`by my education, training, research, and experience, as summarized in Section IV
`
`and described in detail in my CV, which is provided as Appendix B. My analysis
`
`of those materials, combined with the specialized knowledge that I have obtained
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`over the course of my education and career, form the bases for my opinions in this
`
`declaration.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed, analyzed, and relied upon the parties’ papers and
`
`exhibits in this proceeding, including the ’803 Patent (KNG1001) and its file
`
`history (KNG1010); the Petition and its accompanying exhibits, including Wulf
`
`(KNG1004), Peters (KNG1006), Burke (KNG1007), Saunders II (KNG1009); Dr.
`
`Smith’s declaration (KNG1002) and deposition transcript; Creative Spark’s
`
`preliminary response; and the Board’s institution decision. I have also reviewed,
`
`analyzed, and relied upon each of the exhibits cited in this declaration, including
`
`the following:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`S.R. Richards, Physical Testing of Fuel Briquettes, 25 FUEL
`
`PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY 89 (1990) (Ex. 2011, “Richards”);
`
`A.N.E. Rahman, Influence of Size and Shape on the Strength of
`
`Briquettes, 23 FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY 185 (1989) (Ex. 2012,
`
`“Rahman”);
`
`J. Mills, Binders for Coal Briquets, United States Geological Survey
`
`Bulletin 343 (1908) (Ex. 2013, “Mills”);
`
`J.S.S. BRAME, FUEL: SOLID LIQUID AND GASEOUS (1914) (Ex. 2014,
`
`“Brame”);
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`JOHN PERCY, METALLURGY: THE ART OF EXTRACTING METALS FROM
`
`THEIR ORES (1875) (Ex. 2015, “Percy”);
`
`M.T. Taghizadeh and Reza Abdollahi, A Kinetics Study on the
`
`Thermal Degradation of Starch/Poly (Vinyl Alcohol) Blend, 3 CHEM.
`
`& MATS. ENG’G 73 (2015) (Ex. 2016, “Taghizadeh”);
`
`-
`
`Robert Shanks & Ing Kong, Thermoplastic Starch, in THERMOPLASTIC
`
`ELASTOMERS (Prof. Adel El-Sonbati, ed.) (2012) (Ex. 2017,
`
`“Shanks”);
`
`-
`
`-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,328,187 to Mennen (1967) (Ex. 2018, “Mennen”);
`
`R.J. Hamor et al., Kinetics of Combustion of a Pulverized Brown Coal
`
`Char Between 630 and 2200 K, 21 COMBUSTION & FLAME 153 (1973)
`
`(Ex. 2019, “Hamor”); and
`
`-
`
`Excerpts from “Industrial charcoal making,” FAO Forestry Paper 63,
`
`Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1985),
`
`available
`
`at
`
`http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5555e/x5555e00.htm.
`
`(Ex. 2020).
`
`IV. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I have summarized my education and experience below. In addition
`
`to the summary I have provided here, I describe my education and experience in
`
`greater detail in my CV, attached as Appendix B.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview
`
`7.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science degree (Honors) in Chemistry and a
`
`Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Manchester, Manchester,
`
`England, a Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) in Geological Sciences from the
`
`Scientific Research Geological Exploration Institute (VNIGRI) in St. Petersburg,
`
`Russia, and a Ph.D. in Petroleum Engineering from Dubna International
`
`University, Moscow District, Russia. I am a Chartered Chemist of the Royal
`
`Society of Chemistry (UK). I am also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry
`
`(UK), a Fellow of the Chemical Institute of Canada, and a Member of the
`
`American Chemical Society.
`
`8.
`
`From 1965 to 1967, I was employed as an Imperial Chemical
`
`Industries Research Fellow in Chemistry at the University of Manchester.
`
`9.
`
`From 1967 to 1980, I was employed by the Alberta Research Council
`
`as a Research Officer and Manager of the Coal Technology Information Center.
`
`Additionally, from 1976-1980, I was appointed as a Visiting Lecturer in petroleum
`
`science at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, and in 1978, was a
`
`Visiting Lecturer in petroleum science at the University of Mosul in Iraq. When in
`
`Mosul, I taught petroleum technology (production and refining) and co-supervised
`
`one Master of Science student and two Ph.D. students.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. From 1980-1984, I was a Research Associate in Exxon Research and
`
`Engineering in New Jersey where I worked on the recovery, properties, and
`
`refining of Cold Lake heavy oil, including the use of carbonaceous residua as
`
`sources of fuel.
`
`11. From 1984-1989, I was the Chief Scientific Officer (and Deputy
`
`Managing Director) of the Western Research Institute in Laramie, Wyoming.
`
`Western Research Institute is a multimillion-dollar research organization which
`
`provides a variety of research and development services, including services related
`
`to crude oil recovery, refining, and product properties. In this position, I managed
`
`and directed the scientific and engineering research efforts of the Institute. From
`
`1990-1998, I was the Chief Executive Officer of the Western Research Institute.
`
`The duties included the general management and administrative duties as well as
`
`oversight of all the scientific and engineering activities of the Western Research
`
`Institute including continued technical oversight of all contracts.
`
`12. Additionally, from 1984-1998 I was an Adjunct Professor of
`
`Chemistry at the University of Wyoming, and from 1991-1998 was also an
`
`Adjunct Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Wyoming.
`
`13. From 1993-2005, I was also an Adjunct Professor of Chemical and
`
`Fuels Engineering at the University of Utah.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Since 1998, I have been Secretary-Treasurer of CD&W Inc., a
`
`Laramie-based contract-funded company that was founded in Laramie, Wyoming
`
`which offers consulting in the areas of petroleum recovery and petroleum refining
`
`as well as other technical services to national and international clients.
`
`15. From 2005-2009, I was a Visiting Professor at the University of
`
`Trinidad and Tobago, Point Lisas, Trinidad where I taught classes in petroleum
`
`technology as well as the properties and refining of various local heavy oils and tar
`
`sand bitumen and the conversion of the high-boiling portions of these feedstocks to
`
`carbonaceous fuels.
`
`16.
`
`I currently serve as the Editor of three peer-reviewed scientific
`
`journals: (i) Petroleum Science and Technology – Founding Editor and Editor since
`
`1983, as well as (ii) Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
`
`Environmental Effects – Editor since 1993, and (iii) Energy Sources Part B:
`
`Economics, Planning, and Policy – Founding Editor and Editor since 2006. The
`
`three Journals are published by Taylor & Francis (London, United Kingdom, and
`
`Philadelphia, USA).
`
`17.
`
`I have been the author, co-author, or editor of more than seventy
`
`books and bibliographies as well as four databases related to fossil fuel processing
`
`and
`
`the associated environmental
`
`issues,
`
`including
`
`the recently-published
`
`Chemistry and Technology of Coal, 3rd Edition (2013); Chemistry and Technology
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Petroleum, 5th Edition (2014); and Handbook of Petroleum Refining (2017). In
`
`addition, I have authored more than 400 publications, reports, and presentations,
`
`many of which relate to petroleum and coal technology, and have taught more than
`
`80 courses. A full list of the books, publications, and courses taught is presented in
`
`Appendix B.
`
`18. Throughout my career, I have earned various awards, including the
`
`following:
`
`-
`
`Appointed as the Scientific Representative for the State of Wyoming
`
`to the National Governor’s Association Task Force on State Applied
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Research from 1986-87, and again from 1987-1993.
`
`Diploma of Honor from the National Petroleum Engineering Society
`
`for Outstanding Contributions to the Petroleum Industry in 1995.
`
`Gold Medal from the Russian Academy of Sciences for Outstanding
`
`Work in Petroleum Science in 1996.
`
`The Einstein Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in
`
`recognition of Outstanding Contributions and Service in the field of
`
`Geologic Sciences, 2001.
`
`-
`
`Methanex Distinguished Professor, University of Trinidad and
`
`Tobago in recognition of Excellence in Research, 2006.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`Gold Medal – Giants of Science and Engineering, Russian Academy
`
`of Sciences in recognition of Continued Excellence in Science and
`
`Engineering, 2006.
`
`B.
`
`Experience With Briquetting, Carbonaceous Fuels, And Related
`Technologies
`
`19.
`
`In addition to the experience I have described above, my experience
`
`includes production and properties of carbonaceous briquets from coal, tar sand
`
`bitumen, heavy oil residua, and blends thereof. This work commenced in 1967
`
`while I was in Alberta and continued while I was at Exxon as well as during my
`
`time at the Western Research Institute.
`
`20. Further, while working as a visiting professor at the University of
`
`Mosul in Iraq in 1978, I also studied the carbonization of Qayarah heavy oil and its
`
`potential for use as a carbonaceous fuel in the form of briquets. During this time, I
`
`wrote several reports on the chemical and physical properties of briquets produced
`
`from Qayarah heavy oil.
`
`21. Since leaving the Western Research Institute in 1998, I have worked
`
`as a consultant on projects related to carbonization of coal, tar sand bitumen, and
`
`heavy oil residua as well as the production and properties of briquets of various
`
`blends of these materials.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`22. Subsequently, during my appointment as Visiting Professor at the
`
`University of Trinidad and Tobago (2005-2009), I worked with the Trinidad Lake
`
`bitumen, its pelletization and carbonization for sale as a fuel.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`23. Creative Spark’s attorneys have explained to me the legal standards
`
`that apply in this case. My understanding of those standards is described below. I
`
`am not an attorney, and I do not have formal training in the law regarding patents.
`
`I have used my understanding of the following legal principles set forth in this
`
`section in reaching my opinions.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that this proceeding is before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board. I understand that Kingsford has the burden of proving that the challenged
`
`claims are invalid by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that because this is a Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`proceeding involving an unexpired patent, the patent’s claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and prosecution
`
`history of the patent. I understand that claim construction at the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board works somewhat differently than it does in a federal district court, in
`
`which claims are construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning in
`
`light of the specification and file history of the patent in which those claims appear.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I understand that it is necessary to analyze the claims of a patent and
`
`the prior art from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention claimed in the patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim that depends from another claim incorporates
`
`all of the limitations from that claim. If a claim is not anticipated or obvious, then
`
`a claim that depends from that claim is not anticipated or obvious, either.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`28.
`
`I understand that to anticipate a claim of a patent, a prior art reference
`
`must disclose, either expressly or inherently, all limitations of a claim as those
`
`limitations are arranged in the claim.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that for a reference to be considered anticipating
`
`it must disclose the relevant technology in a manner such that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art would be able to carry out or utilize the technology that the
`
`reference describes without having to undertake undue experimentation.
`
`B.
`
`Inherency
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a limitation is disclosed inherently in a reference
`
`only if it is necessarily present in the process or product described in the prior art
`
`reference.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that probabilities or possibilities are insufficient to show
`
`that a prior art reference inherently discloses something beyond what it discloses
`
`explicitly.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable as obvious if the differences
`
`between the claim 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 to which the subject matter pertains at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that obviousness is a question of law based on underlying
`
`factual issues. Those factual issues are: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) differences between the prior art and the claimed invention as a whole; (3) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made; and (4)
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that an obviousness case based on modifying or
`
`combining one or more prior art references requires the petitioner to show that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify or combine
`
`those prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that an obviousness case based on modifying or
`
`combining one or more prior art references also requires the petitioner to show that
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`successfully achieving the claimed invention.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that example reasons to combine or modify prior art
`
`references that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior
`
`art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of
`
`a known technique to improve similar techniques; combining elements in a way
`
`that would be “obvious to try” where there exists a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions and a reasonable expectation of success; design incentives or
`
`market forces that would prompt variations of known work if those variations were
`
`predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art; a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art to combine or modify prior art references to arrive at the
`
`claimed subject matter; and optimization of a recognized result-effective variable
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art if that optimization would be routine.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that there are also reasons that would prevent a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art from modifying or combining prior art references.
`
`Examples of prior art references that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`combine or modify to achieve the claimed invention include prior art references
`
`that teach away from one another; prior art references that teach away from the
`
`claimed invention; prior art references whose combination or modification would
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`change the principle of operation of either prior art reference; prior art references
`
`whose combination or modification would render them inoperable or unsuitable for
`
`their intended purpose; and prior art references whose combination or modification
`
`would destroy a key objective of that prior art reference.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in determining whether a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would combine or modify prior art references, the entire contents of each
`
`prior art reference must be considered, including parts of those references that
`
`would suggest against the proposed combination or modification.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that objective indications of non-obviousness or
`
`“secondary considerations,” if established, can weigh in favor of a finding of
`
`non-obviousness. A nonexhaustive list of secondary considerations includes: long-
`
`felt need, failure of others, and skepticism of experts.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” must be related or
`
`connected to the language of the claims, and that this relationship is sometimes
`
`called “nexus.” Nexus may be found if the secondary considerations relate to an
`
`individual novel, non-obvious feature or to a novel, non-obvious combination of
`
`features in a claim.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Written Description And Priority
`
`41.
`
`I understand that whether a claim in a child application can claim
`
`priority to a parent application requires considering whether the claim has “written
`
`description” support in the parent application.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that written description turns on whether a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the disclosure of the parent
`
`application that the applicant had possession of the subject matter of the claim in
`
`the child application as of the filing date of the parent application.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that Creative Spark has alleged that all of the challenged
`
`claims are entitled to a priority date at least as early as (or no later than) June 1,
`
`2004, the filing date of the application that published as Saunders II. (KNG1009,
`
`at Cover.) I understand that Petitioner alleges that Claims 1-9 and 29 are not
`
`entitled to a priority date any earlier than the filing date of the ’803 Patent on April
`
`29, 2011.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`44. For my analysis, I have assumed the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`provided by Petitioner and Dr. Smith, which is “at least a B.S. degree in
`
`mechanical or chemical engineering with at least one year of relevant industry
`
`experience in combustion, briquetting, solid fuels, fire causation, or a related
`
`field.” (Petition at 3-4; KNG1002 ¶ 21.) I have also assumed that that level of
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art applies in 2002, 2004, and 2011, as Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Smith posited. (Petition at 4; KNG1002 ¶ 22.)
`
`45.
`
`I had sufficient education and experience to qualify as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of 2002, 2004, and 2011, as described above in
`
`Section IV.
`
`VII. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Ingredients Of Charcoal Briquets
`
`1.
`
`Base Fuels
`
`46. The ’803 Patent describes charcoal briquets as being “conventionally
`
`fabricated from base fuels such as charred wood, coal, charred agricultural waste,
`
`and similar products.” (’803 Patent at 1:48-50.)
`
`47. Those charred materials are typically produced by a slow pyrolysis
`
`process in which the wood or other materials are heated in the absence of oxygen
`
`to carbonize them. (KNG1007, at 5:33-41; Ex. 2015, at 374.) The carbonization
`
`process produces charcoal in various sizes, from lump charcoal to charcoal fines.
`
`(Ex. 2020, at 18.)
`
`48. The charcoal fines are then dried and screened by size. Charcoal fines
`
`smaller than 2 to 4 mm in size are generally rejected: those fines typically come
`
`from bark, twigs, and leaves, and have a higher ash content than normal wood
`
`charcoal. (Ex. 2020, at 18.) Larger charcoal fines are generally acceptable for
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`briquetting. Those charcoal fines that are sufficiently large for use in briquetting
`
`are broken down into charcoal powder, typically by hammer-milling. (Ex. 2020, at
`
`18.)
`
`2.
`
`Binders
`
`49. Because charcoal lacks plasticity, it often requires the addition of a
`
`binder to enable a briquet to be formed. (Ex. 2020, at 18.) The binder should
`
`preferably be combustible, though a non-combustible binder effective at low
`
`concentrations can be suitable. (Id.)
`
`50. Starch is a common binder, and the ’803 Patent identifies vegetable
`
`starch as an example of a conventional binder. (’803 Patent at 1:50-52.) Starch for
`
`use in briquetting is commonly formed into a paste to be mixed with the charcoal
`
`powder. (KNG1007, at 5:47-50; Ex. 2013, at 37.)
`
`51. Highly plastic clays can be suitable for use as the binder, providing
`
`not more than about 15% w/w (weight per weight) is used. (Ex. 2020, at 18.)
`
`However, including clay as a binder lowers the calorific value of the briquet (the
`
`amount of heat it can produce during combustion) and makes the briquet ignite less
`
`readily. (Ex. 2013, at 10.) Further, the use of an inorganic substance such as clay
`
`as a binder (or as a constituent of the binder), tends to make the briquet ignite less
`
`readily and increases the amount of ash produced, which can hinder the
`
`combustion of the briquet. (Id. at 10, 24-25.)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`It is also worth noting that during ignition and burning, binders break
`
`down from the heat produced by the burning charcoal briquet. For example, starch
`
`binder begins to break down as low as 572 degrees Fahrenheit (300 degrees
`
`Celsius) and substantially disintegrates during ignition and combustion. (Ex. 2016,
`
`at 3; Ex. 2017, at 12; Ex. 2018, at 3:18-19, 3:41-44.)
`
`3.
`
`Ignition Aids
`
`53. Because charcoal does not always ignite easily, charcoal briquets may
`
`incorporate ignition aids, which are materials that ignite more quickly than the base
`
`fuel in the briquet. (’803 Patent at 1:52-54.) Wax and sodium nitrate are common
`
`ignition aids. (KNG1007, at 5:43-46; Ex. 2020, at 19.)
`
`B.
`
`Forming Briquets
`
`54. To form a briquet, the charcoal powder obtained from the charcoal
`
`fines is combined with any binders (such as starch) and ignition aids to form a
`
`mixture. That mixture is then formed into a briquet by rolling, extruding, or
`
`pressing. (KNG1007, at 5:42-51.)
`
`55. Roller pressing has been used to create ungrooved charcoal briquets.
`
`Roller pressing generally involves two adjacent rollers, between which charcoal
`
`mixture for pressing is deposited and pressed into briquets. An example of roller
`
`pressing is shown in Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,049,333 to Wolfe et al. (Ex.
`
`2005, “the ’333 Patent.”)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56. As the ’333 Patent describes, “[i]n roll presses, particulate material is
`
`
`
`compacted by squeezing as it is carried into the gap or pinch area 33 between two
`
`tangentially interacting press rolls 8, 9, rotating at equal speed. . . . In other prior
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`art briquetting equipment, pillow shapes are formed by corresponding (matching)
`
`indentations in each of the rolls.” (Ex. 2005, at 3:59-68.)
`
`57. The formed briquet is then dried so that the binder can set. When
`
`starch paste is used as a binder, the starch binds the briquet through the loss of
`
`water. (KNG1007, at 5:56-6:7.)
`
`C.
`
`Physical Properties Of Charcoal Briquets
`
`58. Richards describes that two important physical properties of charcoal
`
`briquets are their compressive strength and their impact resistance. (Ex. 2011, at
`
`2-3.)
`
`59.
`
`“Compressive strength is the maximum crushing load a briquette can
`
`withstand before cracking or breaking.” (Ex. 2011, at 3.) For charcoal briquets,
`
`compressive strength can be tested by placing a briquet between two horizontally-
`
`oriented parallel plates, then applying a constantly increasing load until the briquet
`
`cracks or breaks. (Id. at 3-4.)
`
`60. According to Rahman, a briquet’s compressive strength varies
`
`depending on the nature of the load applied to the briquet. (Ex. 2012, at 10-11.)
`
`For example, “[t]he surface compression strength of cylindrical briquets is about
`
`10 times the line and point compression strengths” of such briquets. (Id. at 10.) As
`
`another example, a pillow-shaped briquet has a point compressive strength
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`approximately one-fifth of the surface compressive strength of a cylindrical briquet
`
`of similar composition. (Id. at 10-11.)
`
`61.
`
`It is important for charcoal briquets to have enough compressive
`
`strength to withstand the crushing loads that they regularly experience: “[f]uel
`
`briquettes need to be able to withstand the crushing loads they receive in handling,
`
`transport, storage, and firing.” (Ex. 2011, at 2.)
`
`62.
`
`Impact resistance refers to the ability of a briquet to withstand impacts
`
`without breaking or cracking. (Ex. 2011, at 5.) “Impact resistance testing is
`
`considered to be the best general diagnostic of briquette strength.” (Id.)
`
`63. A briquet’s impact resistance can be measured using a drop test, in
`
`which a briquet is dropped from a predetermined height, such as two meters. (Ex.
`
`2011, at 5.) If the briquet does not break on the first drop, it is dropped again and
`
`again until it does break, at which time the number of pieces that the briquet breaks
`
`into are counted. (Id.) Impact resistance can be quantified using an impact
`
`resistance index (IRI), as defined in the following equation from Richards:
`
`64.
`
`Impact resistance is important for charcoal briquets because charcoal
`
`briquets sustain many impacts, including being dropped off trucks onto the ground
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021 Page 24
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2011, at 2) and, more commonly, being poured from a bag into a metal grill or
`
`barbecue pit during use in cooking. (’803 Patent, at 1:61-63, 2:2-5.)
`
`D. Combustion Of Charcoal Briquets
`
`65. Charcoal briquets are commonly employed as fuel for use in cooking,
`
`such as in grills, grates, and pits. (’803 Patent at 1:22-24, 1:61-63.)
`
`66. The efficiency of a charcoal briquet as a source of heat energy for
`
`cooking is dependent upon two factors: (i) the ignition time and (ii) the
`
`sustainability of the burn, which is subject to the burning rate (also called burn rate
`
`or combustion rate) of the briquets. It is desirable for a briquet to have a short
`
`ignition time and a long, sustained burn after completion of the ignition phase