UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`GARDNER DENVER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2020-00333
`U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.101
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-in-Interest ..................................... 1
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters .............................................. 1
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) & (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`III. Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ........................................ 2
`IV. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................... 3
`V. Overview Of Challenge and Relief Requested UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(B) ......................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested .......... 3
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Grounds for Challenge ............................... 3
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable ............ 4
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge ................. 4
`VI. Background of the Technology ..................................................................... 4
`A.
`The Use of Packing in Reciprocating Plunger Positive-
`Displacement Pumps ............................................................................. 5
`Fabric Reinforced Seals ........................................................................ 9
`B.
`VII. Overview of the ’949 Patent ........................................................................ 12
`A. Alleged Problem in the Art ................................................................. 12
`B.
`Alleged Invention of the ’949 Patent .................................................. 13
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 14
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`D.
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 15
`VIII. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art ........................................................... 18
`A. Hjelsand ............................................................................................... 18
`B.
`Kalsi ..................................................................................................... 19
`C.
`Kohl ..................................................................................................... 19
`D.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art........................................ 20
`IX. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ......................................... 20
`1.
`“fabric reinforced elastomeric material” (Challenged
`Claims 1-6, 9, and 10) ............................................................... 21
`“resilient body” (Challenged Claims 6, 7, 9, and 11) ............... 23
`2.
`X. How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ......................................... 24
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 are Anticipated Over Hjelsand ....... 24
`1.
`Hjelsand Discloses the Geometric Limitations of the
`Challenged Claims .................................................................... 24
`Hjelsand Discloses Fabric Reinforcement ................................ 30
`Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis of the Challenged
`Claims in View of Hjelsand ...................................................... 32
`Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 are Obvious Over Hjelsand ............ 58
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 58
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 60
`3.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 61
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 63
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 63
`6.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 64
`
`2.
`3.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`C.
`
`7.
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................. 64
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 65
`8.
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 66
`9.
`Ground 3: Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 are Obvious Over Hjelsand in
`Combination with Kalsi ...................................................................... 67
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 67
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 68
`3.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 70
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 71
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 71
`6.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 72
`7.
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................. 73
`8.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 74
`9.
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 75
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-16 are Obvious Over Hjelsand in
`Combination with Kohl ....................................................................... 75
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 76
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 77
`3.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 79
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 80
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 81
`6.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 81
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 83
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 84
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`9.
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................. 84
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 87
`11. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 88
`12. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 89
`13. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 89
`14.
`Independent Claim 14 ............................................................... 89
`15. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 94
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 94
`Lack of Secondary Considerations ...................................................... 95
`E.
`XI. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute IPR .................... 97
`XII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................100
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Avaya Inc. v. Blackberry Limited,
`IPR2017-01852, Paper No. 7 (Feb. 13, 2018) .................................................... 98
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper No. 8 (Dec. 15, 2017) .................................................... 97
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper No. 14 (Aug. 6, 2019) ................................................... 98
`Canon Inc. v. HS Asset and Tech., LLC,
`IPR2018-00499, Paper No. 9 (Jul. 24, 2018) ..................................................... 99
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00290, Paper No. 15 (Jul. 5, 2019) ..................................................... 99
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper No. 9 (Nov. 5, 2019) ..................................................... 98
`Hobbico, Inc. v. Traxxas, L.P.,
`IPR2018-00010, Paper No. 8 (Apr. 18, 2018) .................................................... 98
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 21
`Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 95
` Shenzhen Zhiyi Tech. Co. v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2017-02137, Paper No. 9 (Apr. 2, 2018) ...................................................... 98
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 97
`Zip Top LLC v. Stasher, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01216, Paper No. 14 (Jan. 17, 2019) ................................................... 98
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................... 3, 4, 12, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................... 3, 4, 12, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 20
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ....................................................................................... 97, 98, 99
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) .................................................................................................................. 12
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ......................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 4
`83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) ...................................................................... 97
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`Exhibit
`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
`
`PETITIONER'S APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949 ("the ' 949 patent")
`File History for U.S . Patent No. 10,428,949
`Declaration of Dr. Benton Baugh
`U.S. Patent No. 4,474,382 ("Hielsand")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,738,358 ("Kalsi")
`U.S. Patent No. 3,271,039 ("Kohl")
`Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary (positive-displacement pump)
`(Wayback Machine 2006)
`Petroleum Engineering Handbook Volume 4 - Ch. 8 and 14
`(2007)
`Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary (packing gland) (Wayback
`Machine 2006)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,440,404 ("Roach")
`U.S. Patent No. 2,907,614 ("Rosen")
`U.S. Patent No. 1,313,320 ("Miller")
`U.S. Patent No. 1,372,529 ("Mastin")
`U.S. Patent No. 2,658,809 ("Schultz")
`U.S. Patent No. 2,819,102 ("Horvath")
`U.S. Patent No. 3,039,337 ("Pippert '337")
`U.S. Patent No. 2,212,291 ("Heinze")
`U.S. Patent No. 3,013,830 ("Milligan")
`U.S. Patent No. 3,120,960 ("Pippert '960")
`U.S. Patent No. 3,719,366 ("Pippert '366")
`U.S. Patent No. 2,442,687 ("Heathcott")
`Excerpts from October 30, 2019 Deposition Transcript of Robert
`Ash
`Excerpts from October 23, 2019 Deposition Transcript of Steven
`MacLean, Ph.D., P.E.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,534,691 ("the '691 patent")
`Claim Listing
`Pictures of Pressure Ring and Header Ring
`Excerpts from Dkt. No. 134 of Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy
`Wiegand and Gardner Denver, Inc. , Case No. 4:18-cv-01254
`(S.D. Tex.) - November 20, 2019 PlaintiffUtex's Memorandum
`in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment that the '691
`Patent is not Anticipated
`
`vm
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`Exhibit
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`103 1
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. 2019/0323608
`U.S. Patent No. 3,419,280 ("Wheeler")
`Dkt. No. 34 of Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy Wiegand and
`Gardner Denver, Inc. , Case No. 4:1 8-cv-01254 (S.D. Tex.) -
`December 14, 201 8 Joint Motion to Submit Revised Exhibit A to
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`Dkt. No. 34-1 of Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy Wiegand and
`Gardner Denver, Inc. , Case No. 4:1 8-cv-01254 (S.D. Tex.) -
`December 14, 201 8 Revised Exhibit A to Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing Statement
`Dkt. No. 31 of Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy Wiegand and
`Gardner Denver, Inc. , Case No. 4:1 8-cv-01254 (S.D. Tex.) -
`November 9, 201 8 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement
`Excerpts ofDkt. No. 31-2 of Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy
`Wiegand and Gardner Denver, Inc. , Case No. 4:18-cv-01 254
`(S.D. Tex.) - November 9, 2018 Exhibit B to Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing Statement of Utex's Proposed
`Claim Constructions and Evidence in Support
`Dkt. No. 32 of Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy Wiegand and
`Gardner Denver, Inc. , Case No. 4:1 8-cv-01254 (S.D. Tex.) -
`November 9, 201 8 Exhibit C to Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement of Utex's Proposed Claim Constructions
`and Evidence in Support
`American Heritage Dictionary ("resilient") -
`https :// ahdictionary. com/word/ search.html? q=resilient
`
`l X
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`Gardner Denver, Inc. (“Gardner Denver” or “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-16 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,428,949 (“the ’949 patent”) (Ex.1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Challenged Claims are directed to an admittedly known header ring
`
`geometry with a single allegedly novel feature—fabric reinforced elastomeric
`
`material on certain surfaces or portions. U.S. Patent No. 4,474,382 (“Hjelsand”)
`
`alone or with the prior art clearly and expressly discloses this only alleged point of
`
`novelty, as well as the claimed geometry—which is unsurprising given that it has
`
`been known for at least ninety years to use fabric reinforced materials, including
`
`elastomers, on header rings. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board
`
`institute an IPR as to the ’949 patent, as set forth herein.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest is Gardner Denver, Inc.
`
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`The outcome of this proceeding could affect or be affected by the proceedings
`
`in U.S. Patent App. No. 16/444,999 and Utex Industries, Inc. v. Troy Wiegand and
`
`Gardner Denver, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-01254 (S.D. Tex.). U.S. Patent App. No.
`
`16/444,999 claims to be a continuation of the patent application that issued as the
`
`’949 patent. Ex.1028 (cover). In the district court case, Utex Industries, Inc. (“Utex”
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`or "Patent Owner") has asserted that Gardner Denver infringes claims 10 and 13 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,534,691 ("the '691 patent"). The ' 949 patent claims to be a
`
`continuation of the patent application that issued as the ' 691 patent. Utex alleges
`
`that the '949 patent claims are "broader than" claims 10 and 13 of the '691 patent.
`
`Ex.1027 (4-5).
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) & (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and
`Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Helena D. Kiepura
`Reg. No. 64,441
`helena.kiepura@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Deliver:y Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N .W .
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202)389-5200
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Benjamin J. Behrendt
`Reg. No. 7 1,41 7
`benjamin. behrendt@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Deliver:y Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N .W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202)389-5200
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.l0(b).
`
`Gardner Denver consents
`
`to electronic service by email
`
`to
`
`GDI_IPR@kirkland.com,
`
`helena.kiepura@kirkland.com,
`
`and
`
`benjamin.behrendt@kirkland.com.
`
`Ill. PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.1 5(a)(l) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092 and payment for any
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`additional fees that may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the
`
`foregoing deposit account.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’949 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`Gardner Denver challenges claims 1-16 of the ’949 patent.
`
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Grounds for Challenge
`The claims are challenged based on the following patents:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,474,382 (“Hjelsand”): filed February 21, 1984, issued
`
`October 2, 1984, prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).1 Ex.1004.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,738,358 (“Kalsi”): filed January 2, 1996, issued April
`
`14, 1998, prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex.1005.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,271,039 (“Kohl”): filed March 29, 1962, issued
`
`September 6, 1966, prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex.1006.
`
`Gardner Denver requests IPR on the following grounds:
`
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA version applicable here.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-6, 9, 10, 13 Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Hjelsand
`
`1-6, 9, 10, 13 Obviousness under 35 U .S.C. § 103 by Hjelsand
`
`1-6, 9, 10, 13 Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Hjelsand in
`
`combination with Kalsi
`
`1-1 6
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Hjelsand in
`
`combination with Kohl
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`A detailed explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is
`
`provided in Section IX.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`A list of exhibits is provided at the beginning of the Petition. The relevance
`
`of this evidence and the specific portions supporting the challenge is provided in
`
`Section IX. Gardner Denver submits a declaration of Dr. Benton Baugh (Ex. I 003)
`
`in support of this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`The '949 patent broadly relates to header rings in packing assemblies for oil
`
`and gas pumps. Ex.1001 (1 :21-23). Below is a brief overview of the state of the art
`
`at the time the '949 patent was filed. See also Ex. I 003 (ifif20-28).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`A. The Use of Packing in Reciprocating Plunger Positive-
`Displacement Pumps
`Reciprocating plunger positive-displacement pumps are used in hydraulic
`
`fracturing (“fracking”) to inject fluids at high pressure into underground rock
`
`formations associated with oil and gas wells. Ex.1008 (4, 23)2; Ex.1007 (1); Ex.1010
`
`(1:14-24); Ex.1003 (¶21). They have two components: a power end and a fluid end.
`
`Ex.1008 (73); Ex.1003 (¶21). To prevent fluid from entering the power end and
`
`damaging the pump, seals known as packing are placed around the opening that
`
`houses the reciprocating plunger, as shown in the cross section below:
`
`Ex.1008 (75 (annotated)); Ex.1010 (1:19-29); Ex.1003 (¶21).
`
`Packing has been a common component in many different types of pumps for
`
`decades, including pumps in the oil and gas industry. Ex.1009 (1); Ex.1010 (1:4-
`
`
`
`
`2 All pages cited refer to the exhibit page number.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`13); Ex.1020 (1:4-8); Ex.1005 (7:24-28); Ex.1016 (2:10-12); Ex.1003 (¶22). At the
`
`time of the ’949 patent, it was well known that a typical packing configuration
`
`included at least a “header ring” and a “pressure ring.” Ex.1014 (1:20-23; 1:29-38;
`
`2:49-3:22; Fig.1); Ex.1010 (4:9-14; Fig.3); Ex.1004 (2:23-54; Fig.2); Ex.1021 (2:13-
`
`24; 3:8-14; Fig.1); Ex.1011 (2:42-49; Fig. 6); Ex.1003 (¶22). An exemplary header
`
`ring (black) and pressure ring (gold) are shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1026 (1-2); Ex.1003 (¶22). As shown on the right, these packing rings are
`
`stacked on top of one another in an assembled packing product. Ex.1003 (¶22).
`
`Header rings are placed closest to the fluid end; their purpose is to spread out
`
`the pressure ring and keep it in sealing contact with the walls. Ex.1014 (1:20-23;
`
`1:29-38; 2:49-3:22; Fig.1); Ex.1010 (4:9-14; 6:7-11; Fig.3); Ex.1004 (2:23-54;
`
`Fig.2); Ex.1021 (2:13-24; 3:8-14; Fig.1); Ex.1011 (2:42-49; Fig. 6); Ex.1003 (¶23).
`
`Header rings having certain geometries may also act as the primary seal to prevent
`
`fluid from escaping the fluid end. Ex.1010 (2:52-56; 2:64-3:2; Fig.3); Ex.1004
`
`(2:27-32; 3:41-44; Fig.2); Ex.1003 (¶23). The ’949 patent claims a header ring
`
`having such a geometry and the patent admits that prior art header rings had this
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`same geometry. Ex.1001 (Fig.1; Fig.3; 1:65-2:14; 2:22-35); Ex.1003 (¶23). This
`
`header ring geometry has been well-known in the art since the 1980s. Ex.1010 (Figs.
`
`2-3); Ex.1004 (Fig. 2); Ex.1022 (39:13-16; 76:10-13); Ex.1003 (¶23). Prior art and
`
`the ’949 patent’s alleged embodiments are shown below:
`
`Hjelsand (1984) Fig. 2
`
`
`’949 Patent Fig. 1
`
`
`10 \
`
`22
`
`FIG.I
`{PRIOR ART}
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`21.
`
`’949 Patent Alleged
`Embodiment Fig. 5
`
`
`’949 Patent Alleged
`Embodiment Fig. 6
`
`
`’949 Patent Alleged
`Embodiment Fig. 7
`
`
`so
`
`52
`
`
`Ex.1004 (Fig.2); Ex.1001 (Figs.1, 5-7); Ex.1003 (¶23).
`
`
`
`
`
`92
`
`
`
`Packing is typically a disposable component which fails after a certain period
`
`of use and needs to be replaced. Ex.1010 (5:49-58); Ex.1003 (¶24). Nibbling, also
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`known in the art as extrusion damage, is one type of damage that reduces the
`
`operational life of packing, and it was a problem that was well-known at the time of
`
`the ’949 patent. Ex.1001 (2:1-21); Ex.1014 (1:5-9; 1:14-19; 3:39-43; 3:53-56);
`
`Ex.1004 (1:39-44; 2:61-64); Ex.1010 (1:40-45; 2:3-6; 3:44-47); Ex.1005 (3:35-57;
`
`3:63-4:2; 4:23-30); Ex.1016 (1:17-22); Ex.1003 (¶24). A header ring before and
`
`after nibbling, as depicted in the ’949 Patent, is shown below:
`
`FIG. I
`(PRIOR ART}
`
`Nibbled Out
`Portion
`
`12
`
`FIG.2
`f PRIOR ART J 22
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21.
`
`
`
`12
`
`22
`
`18
`
`20
`
`Ex.1001 (Fig.1; Fig.2 (annotated)); Ex.1003 (¶24).
`
`Nibbling occurs when the packing ring enters a space between adjacent
`
`structural components—such as a pressure ring and a plunger or a fluid end and a
`
`plunger—and is pinched off. Ex.1014 (1:5-9; 1:14-19; 3:39-43; 3:53-56); Ex.1004
`
`(1:39-44; 2:61-64; 4:13-17); Ex.1010 (1:40-45; 2:3-6; 3:44-47; 4:24-34); Ex.1005
`
`(3:41-57; 3:63-66); Ex.1016 (1:17-22); Ex.1003 (¶25). An example of the extrusion
`
`process is illustrated below:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`UNCOMPRESSED STATE
`
`STARTING COMPRESSION
`
`MOSn. Y COMPRESSED
`
`FULLY COMPRESSED
`BEFORE OPERATIONS
`
`EXTRUDING INTO GAP TO CAUSE
`FIG. 2 NIBBLING, PINCHING,
`OR FRETTING
`
`PRESSURE
`
`EXTRU SION GAP
`
`
`
`Ex.1003 (¶25); see also Ex.1010 (1:40-45; 2:6-9; 4:24-34); Ex.1014 (3:39-43);
`
`Ex.1016 (1:9-10; 1:17-22); Ex.1004 (3:12-16).
`
`B.
`Fabric Reinforced Seals
`At the time of the ’949 patent and before, it was well known that fabric
`
`reinforced elastomeric material could be used to construct packing rings that were
`
`sturdier, stronger, and more durable. Ex.1022 (17:3-7; 41:25-42:3; 43:19-24);
`
`Ex.1012 (1:11-17); Ex.1013 (1:22-27); Ex.1003 (¶26). The benefits of fabric-
`
`reinforced material, including that it resisted extrusion under high pressure, high
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`temperature, and other severe environments and therefore lasted longer than non-
`
`fabric reinforced material, were similarly well recognized. Ex.1022 (43:19-24;
`
`123:11-124:5; 139:5-11; 146:11-15; 146:22-147:3); Ex.1016 (2:20-39; 2:56-63; 3:5-
`
`26; 3:74-4:2; Fig. 4); Ex.1020 (1:25-29; 1:46-49; 2:18-22; 3:32-43; 6:12-16; Fig.1);
`
`Ex.1005 (6:22-30); Ex.1013 (1:22-27); Ex.1003 (¶26). Examples of fabric
`
`reinforced packing rings are therefore widespread in the prior art. Ex.1003 (¶26).
`
`For example, pressure rings made of fabric reinforced elastomeric material were
`
`disclosed in the art as early as the 1920s. Ex.1012 (1:9-17; 1:84-98; Fig.2); Ex.1013
`
`(1:22-44; 1:57-60; 1:112-2:4); Ex.1022 (123:11-124:5); Ex.1003 (¶26). By the
`
`1950s, the art recognized fabric reinforced elastomeric material for packing rings as
`
`conventional. Ex.1015 (3:25-30); Ex.1003 (¶26). By the 1970s, fabric reinforced
`
`elastomeric material was conventionally used to combat problems with high
`
`pressure, wear from operation, and extrusion. Ex.1020 (2:18-22; 3:32-43; 6:12-16;
`
`Fig.1); Ex.1022 (146:11-15; 146:22-147:3); Ex.1003 (¶26). The well-known nature
`
`of fabric reinforcement in packing materials at the time of the alleged ’949 invention
`
`has been confirmed by named inventor Bob Ash. Ex.1022 (17:3-7; 41:25-42:3;
`
`43:19-24) (testifying that before the time of the alleged invention, fabric reinforced
`
`elastomers, pressure rings made out of fabric reinforced rubber, and fabric reinforced
`
`elastomers to reinforce surfaces of various types of packing rings were known);
`
`Ex.1003 (¶26).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`The '949 patent itself admits that prior art header rings "can be constructed of
`
`a homogeneous elastomeric material or an elastomeric material containing layers of
`
`cloth or other reinforcing type materials." Ex.1001 (1:57-62); Ex.1003 (if27). For
`
`example, in describing admitted prior art Figures 3 and 4, the '949 patent explains
`
`that "[s]ection 36 of body portion 32 comprises a fabric or fiber reinforced material
`
`while portion 34 is formed of a homogenous elastomeric material construction."
`
`Ex. I 001 (2:22-30); Ex. I 003 (if27).
`
`10A'\
`
`Homogeneous
`Elastomerlc
`Material
`
`31.
`
`32
`
`F/G.3
`(PRIOR ART)
`
`Fabric or Fiber-Reinforced Material
`
`38
`
`Ex.1001 (Fig.3 (annotated)); Ex.1003 (if27).
`
`Fabric reinforced elastomeric material encapsulating an inner core of material,
`
`including elastomeric material, was also well-known. Ex. I 003 (if28). For example,
`
`a 1940s header ring included a central core 94 of synthetic rubber and an outer
`
`covering 96 of fabric impregnated with the synthetic rubber. Ex.1017 (4:19-32);
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`Ex.1022 (127:5-20); Ex.1003 (¶28). That header ring is shown in the cross-section
`
`below:
`
`
`
`Ex.1017 (Fig.9); Ex.1003 (¶28). The prior art contains of packing rings with this
`
`construction. Ex.1003 (¶28); see, e.g., Ex.1018 (2:17-24; 4:51-59; Fig.3); Ex.1019
`
`(3:64-74; 4:41-47; 4:54-57; 7:65-71; Fig. 4); Ex.1006 (1:8-11; 2:12-17; 2:51-64;
`
`Fig.2); Ex.1022 (144:13-24).
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’949 PATENT
`The ’949 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/370,625 filed on
`
`December 6, 2016. Ex.1001 (cover); Ex.1003 (¶29). The ’949 patent claims priority
`
`through a series of applications to a provisional application filed on January 2, 2008.
`
`Ex.1001 (1:6-16); Ex.1003 (¶29). The ’949 patent does not satisfy the requirements
`
`to be governed by the amendments to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 made by the Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) as it does not claim
`
`priority to subject matter effectively filed after March 16, 2013.
`
`A. Alleged Problem in the Art
`The ’949 patent’s background describes an alleged problem in the prior art
`
`concerning failure of packing assemblies due to “nibbling” of header rings for
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`
`pumps. Ex.1001 (1:21-23; 1:63-65; 2:39-42; 2:54-58); Ex.1003 (¶30). According
`
`to the ’949 patent, “nibbling” “gouge[s] out” a portion of the header ring during use.
`
`Ex.1001 (2:15-21); Ex.1003 (¶30) see also Ex.1022 (99:3-5) (nibbling is “removal
`
`of material”). The location of the “nibbling” identified as the problem is the juncture
`
`between an annularly extending radially inwardly facing cylindrical surface 24 and
`
`a radially inwardly facing convex sealing surface 26, which both face the plunger.
`
`Ex.1001 (2:8-14; 2:17-21); Ex.1003 (¶30). The “nibbling” is shown by Admitted
`
`Prior Art Figure 2, which purports to show what the header ring depicted in Admitted
`
`Prior Art Figure 1 looks like after nibbling.
`
`FIG.1
`(PRIOR ART}
`
`Nibbled Out
`Portion
`
`12
`
`FIG.2
`I PRIOR ART J 22
`
`12
`
`22
`
`
`18
`20
`Ex.1001 (Fig.1; Fig.2 (annotated)); Ex.1003 (¶30).
`
`18
`
`20 21.
`
`
`
`B. Alleged Invention of the ’949 Patent
`The ’949 patent describes a header ring with the well-known geometry
`
`described above wherein the region experiencing nibbling is reinforced with fabric,
`
`i.e., using a fabric-reinforced elastomer in that region. Ex.1003 (¶31).
`
`The ’949 patent discloses the material used to construct the header