`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Filed: September 6, 2017
`
`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 IPR2017–01349
`PATENT 9,346,662
`
`FRAC SHACK INC.’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’662 PATENT ................................................................ 3
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................. 9
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 11
`A.
`“A fuel delivery connection . . . for securing the second
`end of the hose to a corresponding one of the multiple
`pieces of equipment to which fuel is to be delivered”
`(Claim 1) .............................................................................................. 11
`1. Term Is Governed by §112(6) ........................................... 11
`a. Means-Plus-Function Standard ................................. 11
`b. The Claim Limitation Uses a Generic
`Placeholder for Performing a Claimed
`Function .................................................................. 11
`c. The Generic Placeholder Is Modified by
`Functional Language Linked by the
`Transition Word “For” ............................................. 12
`d. The Generic Placeholder Is Not Modified
`by Sufficient Structure for Performing the
`Claimed Function .................................................... 13
`e. Summary: §112(6) Controls ..................................... 14
`2. Corresponding Structure ................................................... 15
`Term Found in the Preamble ............................................................... 16
`1. The Preamble Is Limiting .................................................. 16
`a. Petition’s Introductory Case Law Does Not
`Support Petitioner .................................................... 16
`b. Case Law in Petitioner’s Analysis Does
`Not Support Petitioner ............................................. 18
`c. Other “Guideposts” Indicate the Preamble
`is Limiting ............................................................... 21
`d. Summary: Preamble ................................................. 24
`2. “Work Site” (Claim 1) ...................................................... 24
`Relevant Terms Proposed by Petitioner .............................................. 26
`1. “Manifold” (Claims 1–2) .................................................. 26
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`2. “Set Up for Delivery of Fuel at a Well Site
`During Fracturing of a Well” (Claim 7) ............................ 29
`a. Claim 7 Has Three Valid and Connected
`Limitations .............................................................. 29
`b. “For Delivery of Fuel” Is A Functional
`Capability ................................................................ 30
`c. “At a Well Site” Is a Particular Place in a
`“Work Site” ............................................................. 30
`d. “During Fracturing of a Well” Is A
`Specific Limited Duration ....................................... 31
`e. “Set up” Reflects Assembly, Erection, and
`Position ................................................................... 32
`f. Summary: Limitations Found in Claim 7 .................. 33
`V. TOSHIO IN LIGHT OF HOSE HANDBOOK OR GRISWOLD FAILS TO
`RENDER CLAIM 1—AND, HENCE, ANY REMAINING CLAIM—
`OBVIOUS .......................................................................................................... 33
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 33
`1. Toshio Does Not Disclose Capability of
`Delivery to Multiple Pieces of Equipment at a
`Work Site ......................................................................... 33
`a. Petitioner Puts Forth No Credible
`Argument ................................................................. 34
`b. Toshio’s Disclosure Shows Unsuitability
`for Functioning at a Work Site ................................ 35
`c. Summary: “Work Site” ............................................. 39
`2. Toshio Does Not Disclose Structure
`Corresponding to Hoses or Hose Connections
`and Petitioner Does Not Combine References to
`Create the ’662 Patent’s Claimed Invention ...................... 40
`a. Petitioner Impermissibly Relies upon
`Visual Appearance in a Drawing ............................. 40
`b. Petitioner Impermissibly Uses One
`Structure for Multiple Limitations ........................... 42
`c. Petitioner Simply Contends That
`References Teach the Use of “Hoses in
`Buildings,” Not That the Proposed
`Combination Is the Claimed Invention .................... 44
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`d. Summary: “Hoses” and “Hose
`Connections” ........................................................... 45
`3. Toshio Does Not Have “A Fuel Delivery
`Connection” ...................................................................... 46
`a. Petitioner Ignores the Claim Language ..................... 46
`b. Petitioner Evinces No Structure Meeting
`the “Fuel Delivery Connection” Limitation ............. 47
`c. Petitioner Shows No Equivalency for the
`“Fuel Delivery Connection” .................................... 48
`d. Petitioner Has Not Shown Griswold or
`Hose Handbook Remedy Toshio’s “Fuel
`Delivery Connection” Deficiencies .......................... 50
`e. Summary: “Fuel Delivery Connection” .................... 52
`4. Toshio’s Fuel Delivery System Does Not Have a
`Sensor and Toshio’s Sensors Are Not
`Associated with a Fuel Outlet, Hose and Fuel
`Delivery Connection Combination .................................... 53
`Claims 2–11: All Remaining Dependent Claims are
`Similarly Non-Obvious ....................................................................... 54
`Claims 7 and 10–11: Additional Reasons for Non-
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 55
`1. Claim 7: Petitioner Has Not Shown References
`Set Up for Delivery at a Well Site During
`Fracturing of a Well ......................................................... 55
`a. Petitioner May Not Ignore Claim 7 .......................... 55
`b. Petitioner’s Regurgitation of Its Argument
`for Claim 1’s Preamble Fails to Address
`Claim 7’s Further Limitations .................................. 55
`c. Petitioner’s Alternative Theory Adds
`Nothing to Its Primary Argument and Is
`Founded Upon the Long-Felt but Unsolved
`Problem Identified by the ’662 Patent ..................... 57
`2. Claim 10: Petitioner Does Not Show
`Independent Start of Fuel Flow and Toshio
`Appears to Describe Sequential Operation ........................ 60
`3. Claim 11: Sequential Operation Precludes
`Independent Stopping of Fuel Flow .................................. 62
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`D.
`Claim 12 Is Not at Issue ...................................................................... 62
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................... 28, 29
`Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................ 48
`Bell Comms. Research,
`55 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 20
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................ 54
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002).............................................................................. 23
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts v. Cardinal Indus.,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................ 48
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 21
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................ 23
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................... 48, 52
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 60
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)............................................................... 16, 48, 52
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l,
`222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000).............................................................................. 41
`In Re Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC,
`739 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................ 59
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................... 50, 52
`In re Miller,
`441 F.2d 689 (CCPA 1971) ................................................................................. 33
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999).............................................................................. 43
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................... 18, 34
`In re Swinehart,
`439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) ................................................................................. 17
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`Kropa v. Robie,
`187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) ......................................................................... 20
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................ 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................ 43
`Nazomi Commcn’s, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................... 29, 55
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................ 41
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)............................................................................ 59
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017).............................................................................. 45
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................... 18, 20, 21
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................... 18, 19
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................ 45
`SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng’g, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................ 30
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014).............................................................................. 25
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................ 30
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .............................................. 11, 12, 13
`Patent Office Proceedings
`Ex parte Brud,
`No. 2009–011707 (BPAI 2011) [Ex. 2009] ......................................................... 43
`Ex parte Masham,
`2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).......................................................................... 17
`Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
`No. CBM2016–00100 (PTAB filed Mar. 20, 2017) (Paper 12) ............................ 3
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks LTD,
`No. IPR2015–01522 (PTAB filed Jan. 5, 2016) (Paper 7) .................................. 52
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`No. IPR2015–01633 (PTAB filed Jan. 4, 2016) (Paper 10) ................................ 50
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Spex Techs., Inc.,
`No. IPR2017–00824 (Aug. 17, 2017) (Paper 8) .................................................. 52
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`No. IPR2017–00275 (PTAB May 10, 2017) (Paper 7) ....................................... 62
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................... 14, 52
`Federal Rules of Evidence, R. 702 ........................................................................... 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 52
`Other Authorities
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2281 ............................................... 11, 12
`Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............. 62
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`
`
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`Brief Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent 9,346,662 to Van Vliet et al. (“’662 Patent”)
`1002 ’662 Patent Prosecution History
`1003 Japanese Unexamined Publication JP2003–002400A to Toshio Hirokawa
`(published Jan. 8, 2003) (“Toshio”)2
`1004 Park IP Translation of Toshio (Apr. 27, 2017)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 599,702 to Griswold (“Griswold”)
`1006 Hose Handbook, The Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc. (7th Ed.
`2003)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 2,340,070 to McCauley et al. (“McCauley”)
`1008 U.S. 3,688,795 to Taylor (“Taylor”)
`1009 PCT/EP2007/010379 Publication No. WO 2009/068065 to Lohmann
`(“Lohmann”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,927,603 to McNabb
`1011 Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering by Alfred Del Vecchio © 1961
`1012 “Kent’s Mechanical Engineers Handbook” (1950)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 3,331,392 to Davidson et al.
`1014 U.S. Patent Application 2009/0159134 to Boyher
`1015 www.ChemicalEquipment.com Product Spotlight (Sept. 2002)
`1016 “The Valve Primer” by Brent T. Stojkov (1997)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 2,749,062 to MacIntyre
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 4,397,405 to Batson
`1019 Popular Mechanics (Nov. 1977)
`1020 Flying Magazine (May 1995)
`1021 “Instrument Engineers’ Handbook” (2003)
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,960,377 to Shifman
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 2,833,567 to Bacher et al.
`
`
`1 Relevant portions of Patent Owner’s exhibits are highlighted to help the Panel
`locate cited sections.
`2 To avoid confusion, for the reference found in Exhibit 1003, Patent Owner uses
`the inventor’s first name, like Petitioner, rather than the customary practice of
`using the inventor’s surname, Hirokawa.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 489,107 to Storz
`1025 www.Encyclopedia.com Ctesibius Biography (2008)
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 6,779,569 to Teer, Jr. et al.
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 2,730,126 to Jensen
`1028 U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0313006 to Witter et al.
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 3,066,890 to Price
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 2,992,560 to Morgan et al.
`1031 “Internal-combustion engines” pp. 362-366 Bosch/SAE Automotive
`Handbook (1993, 3rd ed.)
`1032 Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, p. 200 (2008 3rd ed.)
`1033 Internet Archive of Integrated Publishing Website, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20030116142041/http://tpub.com:80/basae/7
`6.htm
`1034 Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code of New York State
`(2008)
`1035 Expert Declaration of C. Arthur MacCarley, Ph.D., P.E.
`2001 ’662 Patent Disclaimer (filed Aug. 31, 2017)
`2002 Waterman, James, Better Safe than Sorry: Frac Shack a Welcome
`Addition to the Oil Patch (Jan. 2, 2013), available at
`http://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/better-safe-than-sorry-1.1123066 (last
`visited Aug. 3, 2017)
`2003 Excerpt from Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Opening
`Markman Brief, No. 1:16-cv-02275 (D. Colo. filed June 1, 2017) [Dkt.
`46]
`2004 Jeffrey T. Kiel, Gold Fever Revival: Hydro Fracturing Technology and
`Vocational Implications, ABVE 2015 Annual Conference, San Antonio,
`TX, The American Board of Vocational Experts, A Professional
`Credentialing Organization (March 20–22, 2015), available at
`http://www.abve.net/Assets/2015%20Conference/Handouts/08_Sunday_
`Kiel_Hydraulic%20Frackturing.pdf
`2005 Excerpt from Ex. A to Joint Disputed Claim Terms, Frac Shack Inc. v.
`Atlas Oil Co., No. 1:16-cv-02275 (D. Colo. filed Apr. 6, 2017) [Dkt. 39]
`2006 Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Glossary of Terms, Occupational
`Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, L
`& W, available at
`https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/oilandgas/glossary_of_terms/glossary
`_of_terms_l.html (last visited July 14, 2017)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`2007 How Long does Fracing Take, The Petroleum Services Association of
`Canada, available at https://oilandgasinfo.ca/know-fracking/how-long-
`does-fracking-take/ (last visited June 29, 2017)
`2008 “Set up,” Merriam-Webster.com, available at https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/set up (last visited July 21, 2017)
`2009 Ex parte Brud, No. 2009-011707 (BPAI Feb. 14, 2011)
`2010 Enforcement Guidance for Upstream Oil and Gas Extraction Industries,
`U.S. Department of Labor (Dec. 2, 2016)
`2011 Accelerating Use of Natural Gas in Frac Pressure Pumping Operations,
`High Horsepower Summit (Sept. 18, 2013), available at
`http://www.prometheusenergy.com/_pdf/HHP_PrometheusEnergySlideD
`iscussionSept2013FINALforpublicrelease.pdf
`2012 Malone, Well Worker Safety and Statistics (May 14, 2014), available at
`https://www.fractracker.org/2014/05/worker-safety/
`2013 Expert Declaration of James L. Rodgerson
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Before the ’662 Patent, hydraulic fracturing (“fracing”) equipment was
`
`fueled by a person dressed in a bulky fire-retardant suit, trailed by a person
`
`holding a fire extinguisher, who would drag a long heavy hose in between tight
`
`gaps made by humongous extremely loud pumpers surrounded by flammable
`
`gasses, sometimes in the dead of night and cold of winter, undoing the fuel tank
`
`caps with a flashlight under his or her chin, and pumping fuel through the
`
`opening via a nozzle, while trying to estimate when to stop before the tank
`
`overflowed and splashed fuel all over, one-after-another, all while the fueled
`
`equipment was running (i.e., in the “hot zone”). [Ex. 2002; Ex. 2013, ¶¶48–51.]
`
`If the person could not replenish the last tank before the first ran out of fuel, the
`
`entire fracing operation was put at risk. [Id.] After the ’662 Patent, an operator
`
`sat in a climate controlled cabin monitoring the display of the controller directing
`
`the simultaneous refueling of all the tanks. [Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 8:27–43.]
`
`This improvement is a consequence of the ’662 Patent’s self-contained
`
`fuel delivery system that could be loaded on a trailer, transported to, and
`
`employed at, fracing work sites, using the claimed hoses, unique “fuel delivery
`
`connections,” and associated provided sensors. The claimed features allow the
`
`system to connect fracing equipment in varied positions, with different tank
`
`connections at different heights from the ground; provided powered fuel level
`
`sensors that would communicate to the controller in the trailer; withstood the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`extreme conditions, such as violent shaking; and, furnished reconfiguration
`
`should one part of the system fail.
`
`Despite the importance of the hoses, Petitioner fails to put forth any
`
`credible evidence that its main reference, Toshio, alone or in combination, has
`
`equivalent structure to the hoses. First, the structure Petitioner alleges
`
`corresponds to a “hose” comes from a line on a non-realistic and not-to-scale
`
`drawing, from a reference that indicates the line may not exist at all. Second,
`
`Petitioner
`
`improperly
`
`takes a single structure
`
`in Toshio—allegedly
`
`corresponding with one element of the ’662 Patent—and improperly maps it to
`
`multiple limitations in the claims, including the hoses. Third, Petitioner’s only
`
`assertion is that the combined references could be “used in a building with a
`
`hose,” not that the combined and modified system would function at a work site
`
`in the way the patent claims.
`
`And for other essential components, the “fuel delivery connections,”
`
`Petitioner provides no evidence at all that a combination of references has
`
`equivalent structure. Petitioner only attempts to show the references have no
`
`operational differences to the ’662 Patent, but an obviousness showing must
`
`show the same structure, not function. More, Petitioner provides no equivalency
`
`analysis, failing to address the way the connection operates and why the
`
`connection would result in the fuel delivery connection’s easy transportation to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`the work site, union to different equipment, placement of a fuel-level sensor in
`
`the tanks that would otherwise have no way to communicate with an external
`
`controller, etc. To the contrary, while Petitioner and Toshio are silent regarding
`
`the way the connection occurs, what is known does not teach these results.
`
`Likewise, Petitioner shows no sensor associated with a set of fuel outlet,
`
`hose, and fuel delivery connection on the fuel delivery system as required by the
`
`claims. Petitioner only points to Toshio’s sensors in the tanks being fueled, but
`
`just as any built-in sensors of the equipment being fueled are not part of the
`
`claimed delivery system, such sensors are equally irrelevant in the prior art.
`
`Given Petitioner’s “hose,” “fuel delivery connection,” “associated
`
`sensor,” and “work site” deficiencies, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any of the ’662 Patent claims are unpatentable.3
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’662 PATENT
`Considering that Claim 12 has been disclaimed [Ex. 2001], the ’662 Patent
`
`has 11 claims: independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2–11.4
`
`These claims capture the ’662 Patent’s invention that advanced the state
`
`
`3 These missing limitations are dispositive to all claims; however, Petitioner has
`also failed to show dependent claim 7, requiring set-up for fuel delivery at a well
`site during fracturing of a well, and 10–11, requiring independent start and
`stopping of flow to multiple pieces of equipment, are obvious.
`4 Disclaimed claims should be treated as if they never existed. Ford Motor Co. v.
`Versata Dev. Grp., No. CBM2016–00100, at 8 (PTAB filed Mar. 20, 2017)
`(Paper 12).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`of affairs when the corresponding application was filed, whereby fracing
`
`equipment was being refueled by the “well known method of manually
`
`discharging fluid from a fuel source into each fuel tank one after the other.” [Ex.
`
`1001, 1:13–14.] That is, a person would drag a hose between extremely large
`
`vehicles containing high pressure pumping equipment, manually examine the
`
`level of fuel in the tank, and, if necessary, discharge highly flammable liquid
`
`under risk to life and property arising from “extreme operating temperatures and
`
`pressures, extreme noise levels, and fire hazard from fuel and fuel vapours.” [Id.
`
`1:19–21.] This serial, visual, and manual operation was accompanied by the risk
`
`“that a fuel tank of equipment at a well site during fracturing of a well [would]
`
`run out of fuel” [id. 1:26–27], possibly damaging the well or requiring the entire
`
`job to be repeated [id. 1:16–17].
`
`To resolve this dangerous and inefficient situation, the patentee needed a
`
`system that was “portable and transportable to various well sites” [id. 2:33–34],
`
`that would securely attach to disparate equipment with fuel tanks generally
`
`designed with “threaded coupling” [id. 3:16–17], that could be quickly setup “in
`
`whatever arrangement the well operator ha[d] requested that the fracturing
`
`equipment be placed around the well” [id. 5:46–49], that would receive fuel
`
`levels from sensors that could “communicate[] with a control station on [a]
`
`trailer” [id. 3:43], and have sensors that were associated with a particular
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`hose/fuel outlet/fuel delivery connection combination so the controller could
`
`“provide control signals to the respective automatically operable valves 58” [id.
`
`4:40–41].
`
`In response, the patentee invented a system whereby different types of
`
`“caps 26 may be carried with the trailer 14 to a well site and the caps on the fuel
`
`tanks at the well site are removed and replaced with the caps 44.” [Id. 5:32–35.]
`
`And
`
`these fuel delivery connections were not only configurable “to
`
`accommodate . . . [different] opening[s] in the fuel tank[s] or different designs
`
`of fill risers” [id. 7:46–47], but each included “at least three ports” [id. 3:23]: “a
`
`port for fuel delivery, a port for a fluid level sensor and a port for release of air
`
`from the fuel tank during fuel delivery” [id. 1:40–42].
`
`The patent discloses three different embodiments of the fuel delivery
`
`connection. The preferred embodiment is shown in Figures 2 and 3 below.5
`
`
`5 Color and annotations added to all figures.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`
`
`The fuel delivery connection connects to the tank (12) with a threaded or quick
`
`coupler. [Id. 3:14–52.] Fuel is delivered via the hose (24) which may be
`
`connected via a dry connection (62) to a conduit (27), such as a drop tube, pipe,
`
`flexible hose, or telescoping stinger. [Id.] The breather port (48) allows for a
`
`vent or vapor relief line (52) with a one-way valve and pail (not shown). [Id.]
`
`The fuel level sensor, hydrostatic or a transducer (54), introduced to the fuel tank
`
`via the fuel level sensor port (49), connects to a wired or wireless transceiver
`
`(55) mounted with a bracket or clip (not shown). [Id.; see also id. 6:4–30.] The
`
`fuel delivery connection may also have a pressure relief nozzle or drain cock to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`minimize release upon disconnection/connection; a generator or battery to power
`
`the components; and fittings filler or resin to eliminate gaps. [Id. 4:4–30.]
`
`Alternate embodiments are shown in Figures 4 and 5, the latter shown
`
`below:
`
`In this embodiment, the fuel delivery connection comprises four separate pieces,
`
`the top end (46), intermediate portion (61), bottom end (57), and drop tube (73),
`
`that assemble to accommodate different tank and riser designs, and allows for “a
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`rotatable connection between [intermediate] portion 61 and top end 46. [Id.
`
`7:36–41; 8:8–10.]
`
`The fuel delivery connection (Figure 2 superimposed) is part of a larger
`
`system, with one embodiment (Figure 1) as shown:
`
`
`
`Supply tanks (18, 20) may be on the trailer (14), or on a separate trailer,
`
`and are connected to respective pumps (32, 34) and then to manifolds (36, 38).
`
`[Id. 3:1–3; 5:55–65.]
`
`The manifolds are made of the valve (28, 30) and connection (60)
`
`arrangements to the fuel outlets (22). [Id. 3:11–13 (“The manually controlled
`
`valves 28 are preferably located on and formed as part of the manifolds 36, 38.”)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`(emphasis added); 5:9–10; 5:41–42 (explaining outlet (22) is “on a manifold”);
`
`8:56–57 (same)].
`
`Hoses (24) are stored on hose reels (30), and connect the manifolds (36,
`
`38), at the fuel outlets (22), to the fuel delivery connections. [Id. 6:55–56
`
`(“Hoses from the outlets 22 may be stored on reels 30 mounted on two or more
`
`shelves within the trailer 14.”).]
`
`The controller “is responsive to a low fuel level signal from each fuel tank
`
`12 to start fuel flow to the fuel tank 12 independently of flow to other fuel tanks
`
`12 and to a high level signal from each fuel tank 12 to stop fuel flow to the fuel
`
`tank 12 independently of flow to other fuel tanks 12.” [Id. 4:43–47.]
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention of the ’662
`
`Patent relates is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical, oil &
`
`gas, or industrial engineering, or a comparable degree, and at least two years’
`
`experience working in the field of fueling hydraulic fracturing equipment.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with Patent Owner that a POSITA is limited to
`
`just persons with an electrical or mechanical engineering degree and that “the
`
`field” of the ’662 Patent is “fluid handling systems” generally [Pet. 8.]
`
`The ’662 Patent concerns the unique and specialized field of fueling for
`
`hydraulic fracturing [Ex. 2013, ¶¶15–24 (citing Exs. 2004 and 2012 (explaining
`
`hydraulic fracturing work sites are unique, having characteristics of both the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`construction and oil and gas industry)).] As noted by the patentee, fracing work
`
`sites have “extreme operating temperatures and pressures, extreme noise levels,
`
`and fire hazard from fuel and fuel vapours” [Ex. 1001, 1:18–21] which are not
`
`common to all “fluid handling systems” [Ex. 2013, ¶¶15–24]. See In re Clay,
`
`966 F. 2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding prior art not in the same field as the
`
`patent-at-issue “merely because both relate to the petroleum industry” when one
`
`“operates in extreme conditions” and the other “operates at ambient temperature
`
`and atmospheric pressure”).
`
`And the remote nature of well sites and temporary duration of fracing
`
`work imposes special portability, self-containment, and flexibility constraints.
`
`[See id. 2:30–34 & 5:32–49 (noting the fuel delivery system may be contained
`
`on a single trailer carrying hoses, fuel delivery connections, and custom sensors
`
`needed to interface with various unknown equipment).]
`
`As such, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert needs to have
`
`more than fluid handling experience, but practice and knowledge of the practical
`
`problems in the field the patentee’s invention is intended to overcome: hydraulic
`
`fracing.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017–01349
`
`
`
`Patent 9,346,662
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. “A fuel delivery connection . . . for securing the second end of the hose to
`a corresponding one of the multiple pieces of equipment to which fuel is
`to be delivered” (Claim 1)
`1. Term Is Governed by §112(6)6
`a. Means-Plus-Function Standard
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112(6), an element in a claim may be expressed as a
`
`means for performing a specified function but the quid pro quo for such
`
`functional claiming is that the scope of coverage is limited to the corresponding
`
`structure in the specification that accomplishes the function. Williamson v.
`
`Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citations
`
`omitted). To help discern if a term without the word “means” falls within
`
`§112(6), the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) specifies a three-
`
`prong analysis: (A) the limitation uses a substitute term for “means” that is a
`
`generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic
`
`placeholder is modified by functional language linked by the transition word
`
`“for”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for
`
`performing the claimed function. [MPEP § 2181.]
`
`b. The Claim Limitation Uses a Generic Placeholder for
`Performing a Claimed Function
`
`In context, the term reads:
`
`
`6 Because th