`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`FUEL AUTOMATION STATION, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAC SHACK INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`United States Patent No. 9,346,662
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi
`I.
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... 1
`B. Related Matters ........................................................................................ 1
`C. Lead / Back-Up Counsel and Service Information .................................. 1
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID ................................................................................ 2
`IV.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`A. Summary of Argument ............................................................................ 2
`B. The ‘662 Patent’s Intended Environment Cannot Save It ....................... 5
`C. The ‘662 Patent and Relevant Prosecution History ................................. 6
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A. “manifold” (claims 1 and 2) ...................................................................10
`B. “set up for delivery of fuel at a well site during fracturing of a well”
`(claim 7) .................................................................................................10
`C. “cap” (claim 12) .....................................................................................12
`D. Claim 1 Preamble ...................................................................................13
`VII. PRIOR ART RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER ........................................ 14
`A. Toshio (JP 2003002400A) .....................................................................15
`B. Griswold (U.S. 599,702) ........................................................................15
`C. Hose Handbook (copyright 2003)..........................................................16
`D. Witter (U.S. Pub. 2008/0313006) ..........................................................16
`E. McCauley (U.S. 2,340,070) ...................................................................17
`F. Taylor (U.S. 3,688,795) .........................................................................17
`G. Lohmann (WO 2009/068065) ................................................................18
`H. McNabb (U.S. 5,927,603) ......................................................................18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 19
`A. Ground 1A: Claims 1, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 over Toshio in view of Griswold or Hose Handbook. ..................20
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................20
`2. Claim 7 ............................................................................................39
`3. Claim 9 ............................................................................................41
`4. Claim 10 ..........................................................................................41
`5. Claim 11 ..........................................................................................42
`B. Ground 1B: Claim 3 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Toshio
`in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and Witter. .................................44
`1. Claim 3 ............................................................................................44
`C. Ground 1C: Claims 4 and 5 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
`Toshio in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and Lohmann .................49
`1. Claims 4 and 5 .................................................................................49
`D. Ground 1D: Claims 2 and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
`Toshio in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and McCauley................52
`1. Claim 2 ............................................................................................52
`2. Claim 6 ............................................................................................54
`E. Ground 1E: Claim 8 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Toshio
`in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and optionally McNabb. ............56
`1. Claim 8 ............................................................................................56
`F. Ground 1F: Claims 7 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Toshio
`in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and Applicant’s Admitted
`Prior Art (APA). .....................................................................................59
`1. Claim 7 ............................................................................................59
`G. Ground 1B: Claims 3 and 12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103
`over Toshio in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and Taylor. ............61
`1. Claim 12 ..........................................................................................61
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,346,662 (the ‘662 Patent)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,346,662 Prosecution History
`JP2003002400 to Toshio (Native)
`JP2003002400 to Toshio (English with Certification)
`U.S. Patent No. 599,702 to Griswold
`Hose Handbook © 2003
`U.S. Patent No. 2,340,070 to McCauley et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 3,688,795 to Taylor
`WO 2009/068065 to Lohmann
`U.S. Patent No. 5,927,603 to McNabb
`“Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering” by Alfred Del Vecchio
`© 1961
`“Kent’s Mechanical Engineers Handbook” © 1950
`U.S. Patent No. 3,331,392 to Davidson et al.
`U.S. Patent Application 2009/0159134 to Boyher
`www.ChemicalEquipment.com Product Spotlight – Sept. 2002
`“The Valve Primer” by Brent T. Stojkov © 1997
`U.S. Patent No. 2,749,062 to MacIntyre
`U.S. Patent No. 4,397,405 to Batson
`Popular Mechanics – Nov. 1977
`Flying Magazine – May 1995
`“Instrument Engineers’ Handbook” © 2003
`U.S. Patent No. 6,960,377 to Shifman
`U.S. Patent No. 2,833,567 to Bacher et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 489,107 to Storz
`www.Encyclopedia.com Ctesibius Biography – © 2008
`U.S. Patent No. 6,779,569 to Teer, Jr. et al
`U.S. Patent No. 2,730,126 to Jensen
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0313006 to Witter et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 3,066,890 to Price
`U.S. Patent No. 2,992,560 to Morgan et al.
`“Internal-combustion engines” pp. 362-366 Bosch/SAE
`Automotive Handbook, 3rd ed., 1993
`“Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary”, Third Edition,
`© 2008, p. 200
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Tubing, Piping, and Hose (www.tpub.com), 01-16-03 capture
`Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code of New
`York State (2008)
`Expert Declaration of C. Arthur MacCarley, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................... 16
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................... 16
`
`Ex parte Masham,
` 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) ........................................................... 13, 18, 46
`
`GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA1960) ..................................................................... 61
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
` 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................. 13, 18
`
`Innovention Toys v. MGA Entertainment, 637 F. 3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................. 21
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (Ex. 1035, ¶ 211) .............................................. 57, 61
`
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978) ........................................................................................ 15
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 15
`
`Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963) ....................................................................... 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 16
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
` 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 20
`
`Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................... 20, 27
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................... 20
`
`Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983)......................................................... 33
`
`Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................. 16
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
` 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................... 19
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 16
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ 16
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................... 16
`
`Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................................................................................... 24, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................................. 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................................................ 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................................ 22, 23, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................................................ 25
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ........................................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. §104(a)............................................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) .................................................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Atlas Oil Company, Fuel Automation Station,
`
`LLC, Simon Group Holdings I, LLC, and Atlas Oil Holding Company.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Frac Shack Inc. (hereafter “Shack”) has asserted at least claims 1-4 and 7-12
`
`of U.S. Patent 9,346,662 (herein “the ‘662 Patent”) against Atlas Oil Company and
`
`Fuel Automation Station, LLC (collectively “Atlas”) in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Colorado. Civil Action No. 16-cv-02275-STV. Shack served
`
`Atlas with the lawsuit on September 16, 2016.
`
`
`C. Lead / Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates Matthew Koziarz (Reg. No. 53,154), available at 400 W.
`
`Maple, Ste. 350, Birmingham, MI 48009 (T: 248-988-8360) as lead counsel, and
`
`Alex Szypa, (Reg. No. 70,374), available at the same address and telephone, as
`
`backup counsel. Please address all correspondence to both lead and backup counsel.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic email at the following addresses:
`
`MKoziarz@cgolaw.com
`
`ASzypa@cgolaw.com
`
`

`

`A power of attorney from Fuel Automation Station, LLC to Carlson, Gaskey
`
`& Olds, P.C. (Customer Number 26096) is being filed concurrently with these
`
`mandatory notices in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II. STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §104(a), that the ‘662 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are submitted herewith. If additional fees are due now or during this
`
`proceeding, the undersigned authorizes the Office to charge Deposit Account No.
`
`50-1482 in the name of Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Argument
`
`The ‘662 Patent broadly claims a fuel delivery system made up of a fuel
`
`supply, manifold, valves, sensors, and controllers. (Ex. 1001, at 8:52-9:15). As
`
`claimed, it is a system that uses known elements, in a known arrangement, to address
`
`known challenges. Indeed, seven years before the Patent Owner filed for what would
`
`become the ‘662 Patent, a Japanese patent to Toshio disclosed each element of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`independent claim of the ‘662 Patent with the exception of a pipe in Toshio where
`
`the ‘662 Patent uses a hose.1 (Exs. 1003, 1004).
`
`Toshio teaches a system for delivering fuel to tanks having sensors that detect
`
`low and high fuel levels. A controller receives signals from the level sensors and
`
`dispenses fuel through a manifold via electronically controlled valves to the tanks
`
`and, subsequently, to a plurality of combustion instruments.
`
`A comparison of two patent drawings below demonstrates the near identical
`
`structure of the ‘662 Patent and Toshio. On top is an annotated Figure 6 from Toshio
`
`and, on the bottom, an annotated Figure 1 from the ‘662 Patent. The commonality
`
`in the main structure and components is highlighted in green, while the pipes in
`
`Toshio and hoses in the ‘662 Patent are highlighted in yellow.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Indeed, Toshio not only discloses the basic structure of the ‘662 Patent but also
`
`claims additional features such as leak sensing, flow meters, and leak-detecting
`
`functionality that are beyond the claims of the ‘662 Patent, suggesting that even as
`
`early as 2003 those in the field were already patenting advances beyond the basic
`
`structure of the ‘662 Patent. (Ex. 1004 - Page 3).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Toshio (2003)
`
`Tanks with sensors
`
`"5
`
`II?
`
`Manifold
`
`
`‘662 Patent (2010)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tanks with sensors
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`FIG.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Although Toshio uses pipes where the ‘662 Patent uses hoses, as of February
`
`2010 hoses were well known alternatives to a persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) when making a choice for how to convey a liquid. (Ex. 1006 – Page 10)2;
`
`(Ex. 1033)3; (Ex. 1027, 1:19-21) (in fuel delivery systems to tanks of vehicles, it was
`
`“general practice to fill the tanks” with “filler pipes or hoses leading from a supply
`
`source into manhole openings in the tops of tanks”); (Ex. 1029, 5:13-16) (refueling
`
`fuel tanks in airplanes performed with “pipes or hoses”).
`
`B.
`
`The ‘662 Patent’s Intended Environment Cannot Save It
`
`Petitioner anticipates that Patent Owner will claim that the system disclosed
`
`in Toshio is intended for use in a building while the system of the ‘662 Patent is
`
`intended for a work site. For purposes of patentability, that distinction is not
`
`pertinent. Patent Owner’s use of a Toshio-like system in a different environment
`
`cannot create novelty or nonobviousness for its apparatus claims. Only positively
`
`recited elements limit a claim. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what
`
`
`2 Where specified, page numbers in citations refer to Petitioner’s Bates stamped
`
`numbers, and not any original page numbers of the exhibits.
`
`3 The TPH was publically available via the well-known Internet Wayback Machine
`
`at least by Jan. 2003 at
`
`web.archive.org/web/20030116142041/http://www.tpub.com/basae/76.htm.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469,
`
`15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing
`
`a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to
`
`be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”
`
`if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte
`
`Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
`
`C. The ‘662 Patent and Relevant Prosecution History
`
`The irrelevance of the “work site” preamble of claim 1 or the “well site”
`
`recitation of claim 7 is highlighted by the fact that the Examiner did not limit the
`
`cited prior art to any particular environment.
`
`The examiner initially rejected the claims of the application that led to the
`
`‘662 Patent in a non-final office action dated 5/23/2014 (Ex. 1002 – Pages 299-306)
`
`with no identified allowable subject matter. The applicant attempted to distinguish
`
`the cited prior art references of that office action on the basis that those references
`
`addressed temporary fueling and not “fueling over a long time period,” despite the
`
`claims not mentioning a fueling time period (Ex. 1002 – Pages 288-291). The
`
`examiner again rejected all claims and identified no allowable subject matter in a
`
`second, non-final office action and a third, final office action. (Ex. 1002 – Pages
`
`259-269, 117-128). Regardless, Toshio discloses fueling over a long time period.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`The applicant and examiner conducted an interview on 12/8/2015 and on
`
`12/9/05, the applicant amended the lone independent claim 374 to indicate that the
`
`valve at issue was “electrically operable” and a controller of the valves was
`
`“responsive to the detection of [a] low fuel condition.” Again, Toshio discloses
`
`electrically operable valves.
`
`However, the examiner did not allow the claims even with these changes. The
`
`examiner only allowed claim 37 after he limited it to a controller that would “display
`
`an indication of the low fuel condition or to open at least one of the electrically
`
`operable valves for each of the multiple pieces of equipment that is associated with
`
`the low fuel condition.” (Ex. 1002 – Pages 69-73). Yet again, Toshio discloses all
`
`of these elements.
`
`The ‘662 patent issued May 24, 2016 and claims priority to Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/305,320, filed on February 17, 2010.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of a POSA is a factual inquiry that must be made in determining
`
`whether a patent claim is obvious. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`
`18 (1966). A POSA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`
`
`4 Independent claim 37 of the application, once allowed, was renumbered to what
`
`is now claim 1 in the ‘662 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of skill of a
`
`POSA include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the
`
`field. Id.
`
`In this case, Petitioner submits that the level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`reflected by at least the prior art of record and that it is not necessary for the Board
`
`to make an express finding on the level of ordinary skill. Id.; Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`To the extent there may be any dispute about that skill level, Petitioner
`
`believes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is a person with a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and at least two years’
`
`experience working in a field relating to fluid handling; alternatively, a POSA would
`
`be a person without a formal degree but with at least four years’ practical design and
`
`operational experience in fluid handling systems. (Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 22-27).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Patent and Trial Appeals Board
`
`(“PTAB”) gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of
`
`the specification of that patent. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016); Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus.,
`
`Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`Under the BRI standard, the PTAB assumes that a claim term carries its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSA in the context
`
`of the entire specification. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). The BRI standard is different than the judicial standard under Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and, therefore, this section may propose
`
`constructions that would not necessarily be consistent with the ongoing lawsuit
`
`between Petitioner and Patent Owner. Only terms that are in controversy need be
`
`construed and, even then, only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`
`See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Petitioner suggests that the PTAB may need to construe the three claim terms
`
`listed below but that all other claim terms and terms in the prior art carry their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings as understood as of February 2010.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Claim term
`“manifold”
`“set up for delivery of fuel
`at a well site during
`fracturing of a well”
`“cap”
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Petitioner’s Construction
`a common pipe or chamber having
`1, 2
`more than one outlet
`
`7
`
`12
`
`positioned for fluid delivery
`
`a cover or protection for something
`
`A.
`
`“manifold” (claims 1 and 2)
`
`The ‘662 Patent does not expressly define the term “manifold.” In the context
`
`of use in the ‘662 patent, and under the BRI standard, a POSA would have
`
`understood that the term “manifold” means “a common pipe or chamber having
`
`more than one outlet.” (Ex. 1035, ¶ 60). The use of “manifold” in the ‘662 Patent is
`
`consistent with this understanding and also a common dictionary definition. (Ex.
`
`1011 – Page 3); (Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 58-61). The ‘662 Patent discloses that the manifold
`
`may have multiple outlets (Ex. 1001, 3:1-6, 5:41-43, elements 36 and 38 in Fig. 1),
`
`and Fig. 1 of the ‘662 Patent at least schematically depicts the manifolds 36 and 38
`
`as common pipes or chambers that each have more than one outlet.
`
`B.
`
` “set up for delivery of fuel at a well site during fracturing of a
`well” (claim 7)
`The ‘662 Patent is silent on what it means to be “set up for delivery of fuel at
`
`a well site during fracturing of a well.” A POSA would understand the term to simply
`
`mean that the system is “positioned for fluid delivery.” Indeed, as phrased, a system
`
`could be positioned for fluid delivery without being capable of delivering fluid and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`still fall within claim 7. A POSA would understand that the “fuel” in the claim term
`
`is a material worked upon since it is the subject of the delivery. (Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 62-
`
`66). Likewise, a POSA would understand that being “set up for delivery of fuel at a
`
`well site during fracturing of a well” is an intended use since the term adds no
`
`physical elements to the elements of base claim 1. (Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 62-66).
`
`A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Inclusion of the
`
`material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart
`
`patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA
`
`1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
`
`“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-
`
`Packard, 909 F.2d at 1469, 15 USPQ2d at 1528 (emphasis in original). A claim
`
`containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is
`
`intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior
`
`art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the
`
`claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
`
`Since a material worked upon carries no patentable weight and since claims
`
`cover what a device is not what it does, under the BRI standard, a POSA would
`
`understand that the claim term only means “positioned for fluid delivery.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`C.
`
`“cap” (claim 12)
`
`The ‘662 Patent does not expressly define “cap.” A POSA would, therefore,
`
`give this term its plain and ordinary meaning. Under the BRI standard, a POSA
`
`would understand that “a cap” is a cover or protection for something. (Ex. 1032 –
`
`Page 3); (Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 67-71).
`
`Petitioner suspects that Patent Owner may try to import limitations on the
`
`meaning of cap from the specification to narrow that meaning and so try to avoid
`
`prior art. This will be difficult to do, however, both because it is improper from a
`
`claim construction standpoint and because the specification shows a cap that is
`
`consistent with the construction that Petitioner suggests. Superguide Corp. v.
`
`DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations
`
`contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
`
`limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment
`
`appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiment.”).
`
`The above interpretation, however, is also supported by the ‘662 Patent. The
`
`‘662 Patent states, “Each hose 24 is connected to a fuel cap or fill head 26 on a
`
`respective one of the fuel tanks 12 for delivery of fuel to the fuel tank 12 through the
`
`hose 24.” Ex. 1001 at 2:42-44. The phrase “on a respective on of the fuel tanks”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`indicates that the cap covers. The ‘662 Patent also discloses “Fuel spills at each fuel
`
`tank 12 are prevented by providing fuel flow to each fuel tank 12 through the fuel
`
`caps 26 on the fuel tanks 12.” Ex. 1001 at 5:29-31. The cap thus protects from
`
`spilling.
`
`D. Claim 1 Preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 1 is not a limitation and is of no significance to claim
`
`construction. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body
`
`and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the
`
`preamble is not a claim limitation”). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets
`
`forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states,
`
`for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct
`
`definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not
`
`considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes,
`
`Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited
`
`in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
`
`1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based
`
`on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful
`
`for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for
`
`dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 merits no weight. The body of claim 1 defines a
`
`structurally complete apparatus and uses the preamble only to recite intended
`
`purpose or use. For example, the word “for” in the preamble signals an intended use.
`
`In fact, rather than impose any structural limits on the claimed system, the preamble
`
`merely recites things that would be outside of or separate from the system as claimed,
`
`i.e., the equipment that may be serviced by the system and the surrounding
`
`environment (work site) at which the system may be used. Such equipment and
`
`environment would change from site-to-site and thus cannot be part of the system.
`
`VII. PRIOR ART RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER
`
`The prior art that Petitioner believes renders the ‘662 patent claims
`
`unpatentable has been selected because it is in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`subject matter of the ‘662 patent and is, therefore, analogous art. It is this type of art
`
`that a POSA would consider when deciding, at the time of patenting, whether the
`
`claims are anticipated or obvious. “A reference qualifies as prior art for a
`
`determination under §103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”
`
`Innovention Toys v. MGA Entertainment, 637 F. 3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A reference constitutes
`
`“analogous art” if the art “is from the same field of endeavor… [or] is reasonably
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citing
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). All of the references below are
`
`in the field of fluid handling, like the ‘662 patent. (Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 53-57).
`
`A. Toshio (JP 2003002400A)
`
`Petitioner relies on Japanese Patent No. JP2003002400A to Toshio et al.
`
`(“Toshio”) as a base reference against claims 1-12 under §103. Toshio was filed in
`
`June 21, 2001 and has a publication date of January 8, 2003. (Exs. 1003, 1004).5
`
`Toshio is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Toshio was not cited during
`
`prosecution of the ‘662 Patent.
`
`Toshio generally teaches a system for delivering fuel to tanks having sensors
`
`that detect high and low fuel levels. A controller receives signals from the sensors
`
`and controls the dispensing of fuel from a fuel source and manifold via electronically
`
`controlled valves to the tanks and subsequently to a plurality of pieces of equipment.
`
`B. Griswold (U.S. 599,702)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 599,702 to Griswold (“Griswold”) has a filing date of March
`
`5, 1897 and an issue date of March 1, 1898. (Ex. 1005). Griswold is therefore prior
`
`
`5 Ex. 1003 is the foreign language document of Toshio. Ex. 1004 is the certified
`
`English translation of the entire Toshio reference with an affidavit attesting to the
`
`accuracy of the translation. Citations to Toshio herein will be to Ex. 1004.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Petitioner relies on Griswold as a secondary reference
`
`in combination with Toshio against claims 1-12 under §103. Griswold was not cited
`
`during prosecution of the ‘662 patent.
`
`Griswold teaches a liquid delivery system in which a hose is offered as an
`
`alternative to a pipe.
`
`C. Hose Handbook (copyright 2003)
`
`The Hose Handbook has a publication year of 2003. (Ex. 1006). The Hose
`
`Handbook is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Hose Handbook was
`
`not cited during prosecution of the ‘662 patent.
`
`Petitioner relies on the