`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 10, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN GOETZ
`JOHN PEGRAM
`Fish Richardson
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`THEODORE OLDS
`JESSICA ZILBERBERG
`CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C
`400 West Maple Road, Ste 350
`Brimingham, Michigan 48009
`Telephone: (248) 988-8360
`
`
`
`and
`
`Joe Donahoe, Digital Reporter
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on May 10, 2018,
`
`commencing at 12:59 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` THE COURT: Please be seated. Okay. We are here
`for the oral hearing IPR 2017-00966 regarding U.S. patent
`number 916-6243. I'm Judge Abraham. To my right is Judge
`Tornquist and joining us remotely from our Dallas office is
`Judge Crumbley. Pursuant to the order that we issued on
`April 14th, each side will have 30 minutes of total argument
`time. Petitioner will start and can reserve time for
`rebuttal, no more than half of your time, and then we'll hear
`from patent owner, and then if you did reserve time, we can
`go there. So before we hear arguments, let's just take a
`roll call. Starting with petitioner.
` MR. GOETZ: Thank you, Your Honor. On behalf of
`petitioner, John Goetz of Fish and Richardson. With me is
`Mr. John Pegram.
` MR. PEGRAM: Good morning. Or good afternoon
`rather.
` THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. For
`patent owner?
` MR. OLDS: Yeah. Patent. Theodore Olds from the
`Carlson, Gaskey, Olds Firm, along with my partner, Jessica
`Zilberberg. And we also have Mr. Franklin Morrison from
`United Technologies.
` THE COURT: Great. Welcome.
` MR. MORRISON: Good afternoon.
`
`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
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
` THE COURT: Great. As you can see, Judge Crumbley
`is joining us remotely. He has a copy of the demonstratives
`that were submitted but he cannot see the screen. So as you
`go through your presentations, please identify the -- the
`slide number that you're working from so he can follow along.
`It also helps for clarity and accuracy of the record.
` Okay. So with that, I'll invite petitioner to the
`podium and ask if there's any -- would you like to reserve
`time for rebuttal?
` MR. GOETZ: I would, Your Honor. As close to half
`as I can, but probably going to be about ten minutes I would
`expect.
` THE COURT: Okay. So I will put -- let's see.
`Start with 20 minutes on the clock and if you finish early,
`we'll just add that to your rebuttal time.
` MR. GOETZ: Thank you, sir. And that counts down
`that clock, I take it?
` THE COURT: Yep, it should.
` MR. GOETZ: Okay.
` THE COURT: All right. Let's see. There you go.
` MR. GOETZ: Thank you. May it please the Board,
`John Goetz on behalf of petitioner. We're here to talk about
`the petitioner's challenge to the '243 patent. There are two
`instituted grounds. On slide two, I have them up. The first
`instituted ground relies on three references and the second
`instituted ground adds the Perry publication, which was added
`
`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
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`to disclose structure and feature of the claimed flow fields,
`although it's the same claims that are at issue with -- with
`respect to each ground.
` At the outset, there are three independent claims.
`I just wanted to note that. I have them on slides three,
`four, and five. In the institution decision there was a
`reference to just two independent claims. There are three.
`Independent claim one is the first one, and I've boxed here
`on slide three really the critical language which talks about
`the interdigitated channels. That's really the thrust of
`this -- this whole proceeding. Slide four is independent
`claim 13, and again, I've boxed and read there the -- the
`channels are interdigitated. The second channels are
`interdigitated with the first channels, and then again slide
`five is independent claim 16. Again has that language. I've
`boxed there the second channels are interdigitated with the
`first channels. So where does this leave us after we've had
`the -- the petition and the preliminary response and the
`patent owner's response and the reply? The narrows -- the issue
`is quite narrow. What we have here are really undisputed
`facts about what -- where these elements in these challenged
`claims, independent and dependent, exist in the prior art.
`That's -- it's really undisputed that all of those elements
`exist in the prior art. And as I have on slide six, the flow
`battery elements are disclosed as, for example, in JP 659,
`except for the interdigitated flow field elements that I'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
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`just highlighted on the previous slides.
` With respect to those interdigitated flow field
`elements, it's also undisputed -- I'm now on slide seven --
`that those interdigitated flow field structures are disclosed
`by the JP 228 and peri-938 disclosure. So that's where we
`find ourselves, where all of the claimed elements for all of
`the challenged claims -- and I'm on slide eight now -- are
`found in the prior art that's before the Board. And so what
`does that mean? Well, that means that the issue is pretty
`narrow and I think what -- really what this -- this petition
`is coming down to is analogous art. That's the main thrust
`of the argument that the patent owner has at this point. I will
`say, though, that this recognition that these elements are on
`the prior art shows you that -- that this -- this Perry patent
`that we're challenging here was not a pioneering patent. It
`didn't really break new ground in the art. It is -- it is a
`combination of old elements. And that can be allowed
`sometimes, but what I'm saying is this is not a situation
`where there's really a ground breaking, pioneering invention.
` Okay. So the thrust of what the patent owner is
`saying right now is analogous art. I mean, that's the legal
`sort of frame work that they appear to be going under. And
`really there's two separate tests I have on slide nine,
`federal circuit case In re Bigio. And -- and there's two
`tests and the first is whether the art is from the same field
`of endeavor, regardless of the problems that that particular
`
`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
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`art is addressed. That's one. And two, the second test is
`if the reference is not within the field of endeavor,
`whether that reference is still reasonably pertinent to the
`particular problem when the inventor is involved. And so
`really the question is whether the JP 228 reference and the
`Perry 938 publication are analogous art. We think they are.
`We think actually that there's strong evidence in the record
`to show that the 228, the JP 228, actually does disclose a
`flow battery itself to those of skill in the art, and we'll
`talk about that. But even if -- even if it doesn't, it
`certainly discloses a fuel cell, electrolyte fuel cell. That
`text is expressly in there. Patent owner has recognized
`that, and so the question is is it analogous even under what
`the patent owner recognizes that as -- as having as a
`disclosure. So I --
` THE COURT: -- so I'm --
` MR. GOETZ: Yes, sir?
` THE COURT: I'm curious why you are characterizing
`the patent owner's argument as one of analogous art versus
`just an argument about the reason to combine the references
`or to make -- make the modification that you propose. Is
`there something in particular that you are noting in their
`briefing that they -- they said it's non-analogous art?
`Because that's a slightly different question than whether a
`person of ordinary skill would have combined references. You
`would agree with me there?
`
`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
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
` MR. GOETZ: I think they're related, yes, sir. I
`do think they're different questions. I don't think there's
`any debate about that. I do think that they're all related,
`though. I think when you have an analogous, you know, art
`and the -- and the person of skill is faced with that, that
`the fact that that particular piece of prior art is
`analogous, can be a part of the obviousness analysis and --
`and can be made a part of whether it's obvious to try
`something that's analogous in front of me. But --
` THE COURT: -- (inaudible).
` MR. GOETZ: Yes, sir.
` THE COURT: But is it sufficient for a reason to
`combine that the art is analogous? Or is it just necessary?
` MR. GOETZ: I -- I think it might be sufficient in
`some circumstances. I think, in this circumstance, I think
`it could be. Now, I also think, though, that there are
`specific reasons and motivations to combine in this record.
`And so I -- what I'm certainly not saying that if it's
`analogous, you know, then that's the only question. We do
`think there are reasons to combine and are specific to really
`power and current density of the cell, which is exactly what
`the JP 228 reference is -- is really designed to achieve.
`And also Perry 938 also talks about achieving a more
`efficient operation of the cell. And those are motivations
`that are expressed in the references. And so -- so I would
`say that that is there. And I guess because that's there, I
`
`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
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`sort of thought of the arguments from the patent owner as really
`trying to argue that they're not analogous for all the
`reasons that they say with respect to -- to flow cells. But
`we'll hear from them obviously in a minute.
` I did want to say, though, in -- in -- in the
`context of analogous art, you know, the first thing is
`whether -- whether it's in the same field of -- of endeavor
`and what is the field of endeavor of the -- of the challenged
`patent. And on slide ten, you have the background. It's
`redox flow batteries and then -- or redox flow cells. And so
`the art is not just flow batteries in general. It's also
`flow cells and -- and what the -- the third patent goes on
`after this to talk about in -- in the context of what the
`field of endeavor is. It talks about, you know, what -- what
`a flow cell has. It has negative electrodes, positive
`electrodes, separated by an iron exchange mechanism. And
`these are the structures of the field of endeavor that the
`Perry patent -- the challenged Perry patent is -- is
`addressing, and the JP 228 patent, that has electrodes, that
`has cation exchange membrane. Even the Perry has anodes and
`cathodes and a proton exchange membrane, right, at the -- in
`the -- in the Perry publication, the 938 Perry. It talks right
`in paragraph two about proton exchange membranes. And so all
`this is to say that both of these references are analogous
`to -- to -- to redox flow batteries for those reasons, based
`just on what they -- they say themselves, and then we have
`
`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
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`the Kato -- the declaration starting at paragraph 130 where
`he goes in great detail about why a certain specific fuel
`cells, including those with a -- with a -- a proton exchange
`membrane are analogous in terms of structure and function and
`operation. So we do think it is analogous. But even under
`the second prong of the analogous art, which talks about even
`if it's not in the same field of endeavor, it can still be
`analogous under the law if it's reasonably pertinent to the
`particular problem which the inventor's involved. And so the
`question then becomes is, well, what is the problem that the
`inventor was involved in, and we have that on -- on slide 11.
`I mean, this is right from the challenged patent, column
`four, lines six through 14. The -- the purpose of the
`challenged patent and claims was to enable cells with higher
`performance and to provide, you know, quote, a powered
`density of greater than point -- 0.3 watts percent meter
`squared. So they're really talking about the -- the problem
`is is focusing on this question of higher performance and
`powered density and -- but that's exactly what JP 228 and
`even Perry 938 references are all about. I mean, there's a --
`there's a quote that was actually quoted in the institution
`decision from the JP 228 about the purpose was to increase
`the average current density. And in the -- and the Perry 938
`reference it talks about getting a greater exposure of the
`reacting to the catalyst. That -- that's -- that's this idea
`of greater powered density, and both those two references
`
`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
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`satisfy that prong as well. And so for those reasons we
`think that whatever you think about JP 228 and whether it
`teaches a flow battery or not, at a minimum, that reference
`in Perry 938 are -- are analogous art. And -- and none of
`this should be really that surprising, and we -- we had a lot
`of talk about this at the deposition and there's some
`exhibits in the reply brief.
` On slide 12 we've got one of them. This is -- this
`is Exhibit 1059. It's a -- it's a Journal of Electrochemical
`Society and it's from 2016. Well, we -- we get that. It's
`not at the time of the invention, but it just shows that
`those people -- people of skill in the art think of a redox
`flow battery as a reversible fuel cell, and that's -- that's
`not -- that didn't come late. I mean, that is really just a
`recitation of the scientific truth that, you know, you can
`when you reverse a fuel cell and you can do that, that
`essentially is a redox flow battery. And now at slide 14,
`UTC's expert, Mr. Brushett, you know, admitted as much on
`page 216 of his deposition. He said the short answer is that
`every single redox reaction, including the ones we described
`earlier, can be reversed. And so this was all this idea that
`a fuel cell is not a redox flow battery. And the truth is
`that scientifically they -- they are and they can be the --
`the same. And further, I would say that UTC's expert on page
`220 even went so far as to agree that flow field designs for
`redox flow batteries evolved from the bipolar plate designs
`
`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
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`from the polymer electric fuel cells. That's a question,
`right? And he says I agree that most fuel -- flow field
`designs for RFBs have evolved from bipolar plate designs for
`polymer electro--- electrolyte fuel cells. And so that's an
`admission, I would submit, Your Honors, that their own expert
`is saying the fuel cell's art is an analogous art. It is
`something that the person of skill would look to in trying to
`solve problems and -- and it is appropriate.
` THE COURT: Counsel, before you go.
` MR. GOETZ: Yes, sir.
` THE COURT: Can you just take me to your best
`argument for why one of skill in the art would add an
`interdigitated flow field to an RFB?
` MR. GOETZ: Yes. Well, I think -- I think it does
`start with the notion that you would look to what's out there
`in the art, and -- and clearly the inter--- interdigitated
`flow fields are out there. And so then the question is, you
`know, how do I balance really the overall efficiency of the
`system with the -- the specific electric efficiency of my
`cell. And -- and what you find is that when -- when you
`adjust the flow fields, you can increase the efficiency of
`the cell, the electrical efficiency, the current density, the
`power density, which is exactly what the prior art taught you
`in JP 228.
` THE COURT: And where do you (inaudible)? I'm --
`I'm focusing on page 30 and 31 of your petition where you
`
`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
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`talk about obviousness and you talk about current density
`efficiency. Where do you actually lay that out?
` MR. GOETZ: So I think we -- I think we best say
`that, Your Honor, in potentially in the reply brief. I have
`a slide on that, slide 19. See if I can go that, I have that
`up. And slide 19 and slide 20 are -- are just excerpts from
`the reply brief. And so this is our best argument is, you
`know, would have been obvious to use the interdigitated flow
`field structures of JP 228 or Perry 938 in the known flow
`battery cells of the -- of the art that we've submitted.
`Because for the reasons that are consistent with KSR, if
`there's any need in the field or problem in the field, and
`the quote from KSR there is when there is a design need in
`the field. And -- and the -- the need that we talk about,
`which is on the next -- in the next paragraph of brief, is
`really where we were -- we're laying that out. And the
`problem was approving flow characteristics and power density
`of known flow batteries as represented by that art. And when
`a person of skill would consider the JP 228 and Perry 938
`would be with that problem in mind. And it would recognize
`that the -- the powered density and, in particular, the --
`the electrical -- the current density, are things that JP 228
`talk specifically about. And -- and so I think there's a
`specific motivation there. But also you have that -- you're
`faced with the situation where the skilled artisan has a set
`of sort of known structures, and at a minimum would have been
`
`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
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`obvious to try those structures to test them out to see how
`that works.
` THE COURT: Now, did you make these arguments in
`the petition? I'm -- I'm worried -- can we actually use a
`reply argument about motivation to combine (inaudible) then
`patent owner hasn't -- hasn't had a chance to respond?
` MR. GOETZ: I -- I -- well, certainly we -- we
`talk about motivation to combine, we talk about the reasons
`to combine in the petition. I have focused on this now, but
`I -- when I get back up, I'll talk about that. I promise you
`that.
` THE COURT: Okay. I'd like to have a -- draw me
`to the petition where you're making those arguments.
` MR. GOETZ: Yes, sir.
` THE COURT: And put those reasonably together.
` MR. GOETZ: Yes, sir.
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MR. GOETZ: Okay. So I'm going to go back just
`for a second to slide 15, and slide 15 is a -- is an excerpt
`from JP 228 that talks about iron two and iron three, ferric
`and ferrous, and this -- this excerpt is actually from
`Exhibit 2050, which is the updated translation that was
`submitted by patent owner. The same disclosure is -- is in
`the originally filed JP 228 translation, although I think it
`might say ferric and ferrous, which is the same thing. But
`the point is -- two points on this. One is UTC's expert
`
`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
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`agreed that iron is often used in flow batteries, and, you
`know, when UTC's expert submitted this declaration in
`paragraph 38, he said that flow batteries have been known
`since at least 1971. And when we asked him about that at --
`at his deposition, he cited to a particular reference, and
`that reference is Exhibit 2023. And the only reference to
`1971 in that particular article talks about a redox type fuel
`cell. So, again, we have the patent owner's expert
`characterizing as the first flow battery the disclosure in --
`in Exhibit 2023 that relates to a -- a fuel cell. And,
`again, that's really the way we see that is an admission that
`of course fuel cells, which even agrees the Perry 938 and
`the -- and the JP 228 are addressed due that they are
`analogous art and they are something that -- that someone
`would look to in the art.
` I want to make just a few comments on slide 21
`about claim 11. The only dependent claim which is separately
`argued by the patent owner is claim 11. I have that up on
`slide 21 right now. And, you know, the first thing that I
`want to note is that, you know, claim ten is not separately
`challenged. It talks about the thickness of less than
`2 millimeters. It's only claim 11 when I guess you get down
`to, you know, less than a millimeter. And the patent -- the
`patent owner didn't explain what's the critical difference there
`just in terms of size. But the -- the 659 publication, one
`of the pieces of prior art that's before you, has a specific
`
`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
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`disclosure of electrode thickness of .3 millimeters. So it's
`clearly within -- within the -- the range of -- of claim 11.
`And what -- what the 659, I'm going to click over to slide --
`slide 22, what the 659 reference is all about is it teaches
`flow passages in the plates that are adjacent to the
`electrodes, and it teaches that when you open up those
`grooves next to the electrode that that allows the flow to
`flow a little bit better and it deals with -- with the
`pressure loss. And the idea that it was and before there was
`the electrodes or three dimensional electrodes and the -- the
`electrolyte is being forced through that. If you open up
`those flow fields at the top, it allows some of that liquid
`to go. But -- and it makes it easier. And so that -- that
`making it easier makes the total energy efficiency of that
`flow battery greater. But by doing that, you -- you are
`going to affect the potential current that average density,
`because some of that electrolyte is not going to be going all
`the way through the electrode. But in no place in the record
`or in the 659 is there anything that suggests anything other
`than this trade off between, you know, electrode thickness
`and where you put the flow fields such that a thin electrode
`like that would not work. And this is something that you
`mentioned in the institution decision and that there is
`nothing, anything in the record -- in the record about that.
`Those thin electrodes will work. They're specifically
`disclosed in the 659. And the thickness of the electrode is
`
`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
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`really just a design choice, as you -- as you, as the skilled
`artisan work through the issues with the flow and the
`electrode and the current powered density.
` Okay. Finally, on secondary considerations, I
`would just want to touch briefly on it. I'll just go to
`slide 25. This is patent owner's response at page 57, and
`sort of listed in this -- these couple of paragraphs their
`arguments about secondary considerations. And the first one
`is the inventor's own statement. It's that doesn't count --
` (Beeping.)
` MR. GOETZ: Thirty more seconds, Judge, that's all
`I need.
` THE COURT: Go ahead. It's your time.
` MR. GOETZ: That's all right.
` THE COURT: I didn't -- I didn't realize it was
`going to beep. I apologize for the --
` MR. GOETZ: No problem.
` The -- the rest are -- they're either unconnected
`to the claims or a bionics promotional piece, which is an
`exclusive licensee of the patent.
` And then finally with respect to the license
`itself, that agreement is not in evidence and so we don't --
`we don't really know what that says, and that's not -- not a
`sufficient nexus for any of these supposed secondary
`considerations.
` With that, Your Honors, I'll reserve the balance
`
`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
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`of my time.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. GOETZ: Thank you.
` (Speaking out of hearing.)
` THE COURT: Ready (inaudible)?
` MR. OLDS: Start on page three, if you could. May
`it please the -- the Board, I'm going to start with kind of
`focusing the -- the arguments here and following up on
`something that Judge Crumbley said. We've never argued fuel
`cells and flow batteries are not analogous art. At
`30,000 feet, they're analogous. It's when we put in the
`evidence in our response that kind of blew up their arguments
`that suddenly they started characterizing our entire case
`being non-analogous art. It's not our position. However,
`they then leap from -- and I think you also touched on this,
`Judge Tornquist. They leap from it's analogous -- or perhaps
`it was you, Judge Crumbley. They leaped from the analogous
`to anything you want to do with them would have been obvious,
`and that's not the (inaudible). We all know that. There are
`hundreds of cases that -- that lay out what the tests should
`be.
` Also, the motivation to combine, it's not in the
`petition. There -- there's no statement to that. They make
`some vague statements about it would have been obvious to
`try, but they don't go through the tests, they don't show
`that there was a problem existing. They don't hit on each of
`
`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
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`those steps, and you're absolutely right, we had no chance to
`respond to any of that. And it should be in the petition for
`us to have a fair hearing on -- on the issues.
` THE COURT: Counsel, could I just interrupt you
`for a second.
` MR. OLDS: Sure.
` THE COURT: So I'm looking at page -- I believe it's
`49 of your response, and you do cite and write (inaudible)
`about, you know, whether IFFs or fuel cells were known to
`be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
`And -- but that is a formulation that comes out of the
`non-analogous art cases. But your -- your -- you never go as
`far as to say that it's not analogous art. So I just wanted
`to clarify, you know, since I have you here, you're not
`making the assertion that under Bigio it's not analogous art.
`You're just making the argument about the motivation
`to combine.
` MR. OLDS: I think if that were our main argument,
`we could have saved our plane fare. I mean, I -- that's --
`that's a hard thing to win in -- in -- in -- in the patent
`office, I think, and that is not our argument, no. They are
`analogous especially at 30,000 feet. But they're not -- that
`does not equate to this would have been obvious to make these
`changes. And in particular, after our -- our response, there
`are four big holes in their case. Number one, I think it's
`quite clear that their primary reference, this 228, does not
`
`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
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`contemplate a flow battery. And anyone reading it would
`recognize that. And so because of that, their argument that
`you could put recirculation tanks as are found in flow
`batteries into the 228 or the fuel cell of the 938 also
`collapses. Further, the argument that you can take these
`IFFs from those fuel cells and put them into a flow battery
`collapses, and -- and there's some additional evidence there
`that -- that we'll get into. And finally, we don't think
`they've shown the -- they've met the burden for showing that
`claim 11 would have been obvious.
` Turning now to page four, the '243 patent, it
`broke new ground in redox flow batteries. It is a flow
`battery. A flow battery requires certain things. It's gotta
`operate in a charge mode and then a discharge mode. I mean,
`it might be at night and discharging at night, charging
`during the day, or it could be wind. But you need to have it
`be reversible. For that to happen, you have to have what's
`called a redox pair, meaning the reactants on each side have
`to be able to transfer electrons back and forth. You need
`recirculation tanks because those reactants flow all day long
`all through the mode. So they've gotta keep going and going.
`And we refer to that as round -- round trip efficiency in one
`of our -- our points, and we'll get to that. And with regard
`to '243, we also need to have these interdigitated flow
`fields. And we agree a hundred percent they -- the IFF's
`well known in fuel cells and other one way cells. But every
`
`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
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`single case that ever gets this far, every individual part is
`known. I mean, it's probably the very rare case where
`there's something completely new.
` '243 patent, the critical date, December 18,
`2009. Heading to page 35 real quickly, the R and D Magazine
`voted the -- the UTC flow battery as one of the top one
`hundred R and D inventions of 2012. As of 2012, this was a
`public patent application. It was known to the public as of
`2012, and that gets to be important when you start looking at
`a lot of their publications that were published four and five
`years after that date. By 2014, Exhibit 20 -- 28, SEI has
`actually filed its own patent application on incorporating
`IFFs into a flow battery, which we -- we don't know whether
`they're actually using it in practice, but that's at least
`some indication of a recognition that there was something
`kind of neat going on here.
` Moving on to page six or actually page seven, in
`this case there are two types of cells, and I've touched on
`that briefly. There's what we call one way, and I believe
`Dr. (inaudible) expert has also agreed with this
`characterization. There are things like fuel cells where you
`make a chemical reaction happen and it creates some
`electricity which can then be used. You can operate it the
`other way. You can put some electricity into it and you can
`drive a chemical reaction, such as recovering metal is one of
`the things that's specifically mentioned in the 228. But
`
`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
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00966
`Patent 9,166,243 B2
`
`that's not what the patent covers here. The patent here is
`what we are calling a two way system, meaning you've gotta
`operate in one mode for perhaps half the day and then you
`switch to the other mode for the other half of the day. So
`it's a really different animal. And some of the drawings
`might look alike, but it's a much different animal. It's
`gotta operate in both modes and operate efficiency --
`efficiently because of the whole point of this is to store
`energy so that it can be utilized later.
` THE COURT: Are both of these types of electrical
`chemical cells that you show here on slide seven, are they
`both fairly characterized as flow type electrolyti
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
