UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`DYNATEMP INTERNATIONAL INC.
`and
`FLUOROFUSION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`R421A LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00619
`Patent No. 11,345,840 B2
`
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................. 2
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...................................... 2
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) and Relief Requested .......... 2
`III. SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF THE ART AND THE ’840 PATENT ....... 3
`A. Background and State of the Art .................................................................... 3
`B. The ’840 Patent and Its Prosecution History ................................................. 7
`IPR Petition Regarding Parent Patents .................................................... 11
`1.
`2.
`Summary of the ‘840 Patent’s Admissions and Claimed Subject
`Matter ............................................................................................................... 12
`C. Brief Introduction to The Prior Art References ........................................... 14
`1. Yoshida .................................................................................................... 14
`2. Thomas ..................................................................................................... 15
`3. Schnur ...................................................................................................... 16
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 17
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ................... 18
`VI. CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ‘840 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ................. 20
`A. GROUNDS 1(A&B): Yoshida (A) Anticipates or (B) Renders Obvious the
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................................... 20
`1. Claim 1. .................................................................................................... 20
`2. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 ................................................................................ 27
`3. Claims 3, 7, and 11. ................................................................................. 28
`4. Claim 5. .................................................................................................... 30
`5. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 34
`6. Claims 10 and 12. .................................................................................... 35
`B. GROUNDS 2 & 3: Yoshida Combined with either Schnur or Thomas
`Renders Claims 3, 5, 7, and 11 Obvious .............................................................. 37
`1. Claims 3, 7, and 11. ................................................................................. 38
`2. Claim 5. .................................................................................................... 41
`3. Reasons to Combine and Expectation of Success ................................... 45
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`C. There Are No Unexpected Results .............................................................. 52
`1. Pressure-Temperature (P-T) Characteristics ............................................ 52
`2. Coefficient of Performance (COP) .......................................................... 56
`3. Global Warming Potential (GWP) ........................................................... 58
`VII. NON-INSTITUTION UNDER § 325(d) WOULD BE IMPROPER .............. 59
`VIII. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................... 60
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 61
`A. Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................................... 61
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................ 61
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................... 62
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ..................................... 62
`X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 62
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics,
`IPR2019-01469 ................................................................................................... 60
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MEDEL Elektromedizinische Gerate G GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Pat. Tr. & App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2020) .................... 59, 60
`In re Aller,
`220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) ................................................................................ 53
`In re Antonie,
`559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977) ................................................................................ 53
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 53
`Ex Parte Bryan,
`Appeal No. 2017-003366 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2017) .................................... 29, 31
`ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.,
`668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 23
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data,
`IPR2022-00861 ................................................................................................... 60
`Dynatemp International Inc. et al. v. RMS of Georgia et al.,
`5:20-cv-142 (E.D. N.C.) ..................................................................................... 61
`E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
`904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 24
`Ex Parte Feng,
`Appeal 2017-009448, 2018 WESTLAW 4739994 (P.T.A.B. Sept.
`14, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 29
`Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................... 23, 24
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`In re Howarth,
`654 F.2d 103 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................................ 28
`Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`783 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 23
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 48, 50
`In re Mochel,
`470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974) ...................................................... 29
`Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
`432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 23
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 53
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 18
`R421A LLC d/b/a Choice Refrigerants et al. v. BMP USA, Inc. et al.,
`8:22-cv-0225 (M.D. Fl.) ..................................................................................... 61
`
`R421A LLC, d/b/a Choice Refrigerants v. Dynatemp International,
`Inc. et. al,
`5:20-cv-00147 (E.D. N.C.) ................................................................................. 61
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................ 48, 49, 50, 51
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 28
`Thorne Research, Inc. v. Tr. of Dartmouth Coll.,
`IPR2021-00491, Paper 18 (Pat. Tr. & App. Bd. Aug. 12, 2021) ....................... 59
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102-103................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`EXHIBITS for IPR Petition and Declaration of Dr. Koehler
`re U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840 (IPR2023-0619)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840 to Kenneth M. Ponder et al. (“’840
`patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’840 patent (“’840 Prosecution History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Michael G. Koehler
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael G. Koehler
`U.S. Patent 5,492,643 (“’643 Patent”)
`Provisional Application No. 60/501,049 (“’049 Provisional”)
`Prosecution History of Application No. 10/937,736 (“’736
`Application Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,982,179 (“’179 Prosecution
`History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,703,949 (“’949 Prosecution
`History”)
`Petition for IPR of the ‘179 Patent
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response to Petition of ‘179 Patent
`PTAB Discretionary Denial of Petition for IPR of ‘179 Patent
`Japanese Patent Document H05-117643 (“Yoshida”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,640,841 (“Thomas”)
`Published PCT Application No. WO/93/24597 (“Schnur”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,606,868 (“Powell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,207,071 (“Takigawa”)
`Siva Gopalnarayanan, Choosing the Right Refrigerant, MECH. ENG’G.
`92 (Oct. 1998)
`Kramer, “Why Not Mineral Oil?”, 41(11) ASHRAE Journal 55 (Nov
`1999) (“Kramer”)
`
`v
`
`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
`
`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`RMS Website from early 2002 - “FreeZone Overview” page
`Japanese Patent Document 07-042454 (“Segami”)
`Radermacher & Jung, Theoretical Analysis of Replacement
`Refrigerants for R22 for Residential Use, Report for US EPA,
`EPA/400/1-91/041 (1992)
`Excerpts of Mr. Ponder Deposition testimony (including pages 87-89,
`139-143, 201-202, 214-215)
`Original Japanese version of EX1013 (Yoshida)
`Agreed Claim Constructions in R421A LLC, d/b/a Choice
`Refrigerants v. Dynatemp International, Inc. et. al, 5:20-cv-00147
`(E.D. N.C.), which has been consolidated with Dynatemp
`International Inc. et al. v. RMS of Georgia et al., 5:20-cv-142 (E.D.
`N.C.), pending (collectively, “Patent Family Litigation”)
`Haynes, Thermophysical Properties of HCFC Alternatives, NIST
`Report DOE/CE/23810-80 (1996),
`Widiatmo et al., Liquid Densities of Alternative Refrigerants Blended
`with Difluoromethane, Pentafluoroethane, and 1,1,1,2-
`Tetrafluoroethane, 42 J. Chem. Eng. Data, 270-277 (1997)
`(“Widiatmo”),
`Gunther & Steimle, Mixing Rules for the Specific Heat Capacities of
`Several HFC-Mixtures, 20 lnt. J. Refrig. 235 (1997),
`McLinden, Thermodynamic Properties of CFC Alternatives: A Survey
`of the Available Data, 13 Int. J. Refrig. 149 (1990)
`McLinden, The History of NIST’s Refrigerants Program II.
`Thermophysical Properties Research, 107 ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS
`699, CI-01-09-5 (2001)
`Didion, The History of NIST's Refrigerants Program: I. Zeotropic
`Mixture Cycles and Heat Transfer, 107 ASHRAE Transactions 688,
`692 (2001)
`Holcombe et al., Selected Thermodynamic Properties for Mixtures of
`R-32 (Difluoromethane), R-125 (Pentafluoroethane), R-134A (1 ,1 ,1
`,2-Tetrafluoroethane), R-143A (1,1,1-Trifluoroethane), R41
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`(Fluoromethane), R-290 (Propane), and R-744 (Carbon Dioxide),
`NIST Tech. Note 1397 (1997)
`RMS Website from early 2002 - “FreeZone Chiller Conversion” page
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,254,280 (“‘280 Patent”)
`Killinger & Killinger, HEATING & COOLING ESSENTIALS, The
`Goodheart-Willcox Company, Inc. (2003)
`Jim Calm, Comparative Properties and Efficiency of R-421A for
`Retrofit Use to Replace R-22 (2013), available at
`https://www.choicerefrigerants.com/resources
`Domanski et al., NIST Vapor Compression Cycle Design Program,
`NIST (2003) (describing CYCLE_D version 3.0), available at
`https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=100984.
`McLinden & Didion, CFCs – Quest for Alternative Refrigerants, 29-
`12 ASHRAE J. 32, 36 (1987)
`Published Patent Application US2002/0046568 (Thomas et al.), which
`has the same disclosure as U.S. Patent No. 6,640,841 (EX1014)
`Brown et al., CYCLE_D, Version 6.
`McLinden & Huber, (R)Evolution of Refrigerants, 65 J. CHEM. ENG.
`DATA § 2.4.1 (2020), available at
`https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8739722/pdf/nihms-
`1642330.pdf.
`Original Japanese version of EX1021 (Segami)
`Certificate of Translation for EX1021 (Segami)
`Certificate of Translation for EX1013 (Yoshida)
`ASHRAE Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Dynatemp International Inc. and Fluorofusion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 to invalidate all claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,345,840 B2 to Ponder et al. (“’840 Patent”; EX1001), titled “Refrigerant with
`
`Lubricating Oil for Replacement of R22 Refrigerant” and currently owned by
`
`R421a LLC (“Patent Owner”). Mr. Ponder, one of the named inventors on the ‘840
`
`Patent, is president of Patent Owner. The ‘840 Patent’s prosecution history is
`
`EX1002.
`
`This petition relies on three newly-discovered references – none of which
`
`were before the Examiner or anyone else at the Patent Office, including the PTAB
`
`– and demonstrates that claims 1-12 of the ’840 Patent are unpatentable based on
`
`(a) one reference teaching, inter alia, specific percentages of R-125 and R-134a and
`
`(b) two references teaching additional features found primarily in the dependent
`
`claims presented in this petition. As shown, there exists a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully submits that an IPR should be instituted and
`
`that claims 1-12 should be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’840 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting review of challenged claims 1-12 on the below-
`
`identified grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of all claims (1-12)
`
`of the ’840 Patent. The bases for this request are summarized in the table, followed
`
`later by detailed descriptions showing where each limitation can be found in the
`
`cited prior art and the relevance of that prior art. References to 35 U.S.C. § 102-
`
`103 are pre-AIA. EX1003, the Declaration of Michael Koehler, Ph.D (C.V. at
`
`EX1004), provides additional explanation and support.
`
`Ground
`
`’840 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`1(A)
`
`1(B)
`
`1-4, 6-12;
`
`1-12
`
`2 & 3
`
`3, 5, 7, and 11
`
`§102 over Yoshida;
`
`§103 over Yoshida and the general
`knowledge in the art
`
`§103 over Yoshida combined with either
`(Ground 2) Schnur or (Ground 3) Thomas
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF THE ART AND THE ’840
`III.
`PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Background and State of the Art
`
`The following background is based on Dr. Koehler’s Declaration (EX1003)
`
`and is supported by numerous prior art references. See infra Section VI.B.3
`
`(discussing reasons to combine prior art). Refrigeration technology (which
`
`includes air-conditioning) moves heat. The dominant method (and the one
`
`disclosed in the ‘840 Patent) is the vapor-compression cycle in which a refrigerant
`
`evaporates on the low-pressure side, taking in heat (and thus making the
`
`surrounding air cooler), and then is mechanically compressed and condensed into a
`
`liquid on the high-pressure side, releasing heat. EX1003, ¶¶33-38.
`
`For decades into the 1980s, the primary refrigerants in the relevant
`
`refrigeration systems were chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) like R-11 and R-12 and
`
`hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) like R-22. (Most refrigerants are assigned “R”
`
`numbers for standardization purposes.) In the 1980s it became apparent that CFCs
`
`and HCFCs harmed the environment by reducing the ozone layer and contributing
`
`global warming. The chlorine in the CFCs and HCFCs correlated to harming the
`
`ozone. Id., ¶¶41-44.
`
`In response, the international community agreed to the Montreal Protocol,
`
`which set deadlines to ban the use of CFCs and HCFCs. As CFCs were more
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`harmful to the ozone, the Protocol scheduled their phase out first, followed by
`
`HCFCs. The Montreal Protocol set off a worldwide flurry of research and
`
`development for new refrigerants. Replacement options quickly focused on
`
`hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and blends of HFCs, because they were safe,
`
`performed well as refrigerants, and did not harm the ozone (because they did not
`
`contain chlorine). Two of the most important HFCs, and the focus of the ‘840
`
`Patent,1 are R-125 (pentafluoroethane) and R-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane). Id.,
`
`¶¶45-46. These were not new chemicals – they had existed for decades. Id., ¶104.
`
`The focus on blends of HFCs resulted in intense research to organize and
`
`establish reliable data on thermodynamic and other blend properties, which data
`
`were used in mathematical models predicting and modeling the performance of the
`
`new refrigerants. Scientists organized and accumulated mountains of basic data for
`
`HFCs and blends, such as molar mass, density, boiling point, dew point, critical
`
`temperature and pressure, and specific heat capacity. In addition, scientists
`
`collected basic safety and environmental data (including Ozone Depletion Potential
`
`(ODP) and Global Warming Potential (GWP)). EX1003, ¶¶45-46.
`
`By the 1990s, particular attention had focused on blends of R-125 and R-
`
`134a as replacements for R-22, and data for these blends was widely published.
`
`1 Central to each claim in the ‘840 Patent is a blend “consisting of” 59-57% R-125 and 41-43% R-134a.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`This research included not only the blends’ basic properties at a range of
`
`concentrations, but also sophisticated equations of state (EOS), which calculate the
`
`properties of any blend, such as pressure-temperature (P-T) relationships and heat
`
`taken in or released in a phase change. Using an EOS, for example, one could
`
`instantly calculate a variety of properties of any binary blend of R-125 and R-134a.
`
`Id., ¶¶ 45-52.
`
`The EOS were embodied and used in government-made and publicly-
`
`available software, such as REFPROP, first released by NIST in the 1980s and
`
`updated periodically. Id., ¶107; EX1030, pp.702-706. The EOS also serve as
`
`important inputs into mathematical models of the HFC blends’ performance in a
`
`vapor compression system (e.g., air-conditioner). Using these models, one can
`
`calculate the performance data for any desired blend. EX1003, ¶¶108, 122.
`
`Performance data includes important metrics such as volumetric capacity and
`
`coefficient of performance (COP) across a range of operating temperatures,
`
`pressures, and design conditions. Id. Volumetric capacity is the cooling ability of a
`
`refrigerant per unit volume; COP, sometimes referred to as efficiency, is the ratio
`
`of heat extracted to the work required to extract the heat. Id., ¶48. All else equal, a
`
`high capacity and high COP are desirable traits. Id.
`
`Using the mathematical models and simulations available, exploring the
`
`properties and performance of any specific blend (e.g., 50% R-125, 50% R-134a
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`versus 58% R-125, 42% R-134a) was straightforward. Id., ¶¶52, 106-108. Indeed,
`
`in the 1990s, several publications explored COP and capacity data for a variety of
`
`blends of R-125 and R-134a to be used as R-22 replacements in air-conditioning
`
`and refrigeration equipment. Id., ¶¶49-40, 123-125. One prominent and widely
`
`available simulation model in the 1990s was NIST’s CYCLE_D. Id., ¶¶48, 122;
`
`EX1031 p.692.
`
`Thus, by the late 1990s, scientists had explored a variety of HFC blends to
`
`replace R-12 and R-22. Some blends involved only R-125 and R-134a, whereas
`
`others used or included other HFCs. Each blend had its known advantages and
`
`could be evaluated for properties and performance at any concentration using well-
`
`established tools. EX1003, ¶51-52.
`
`Scientists followed at least two paths when developing HFC blends. One
`
`path designed blends “from scratch” to optimize important metrics such as COP,
`
`capacity, and global warming impact. These blends might have different P-T
`
`characteristics from R-22, and thus new apparatuses (e.g., air-conditioners) would
`
`need to be designed to work with them. Id. at ¶87.
`
`In the alternative, scientists also developed so-called “drop-in” replacements
`
`for R-22. Id. These could be used in existing air-conditioners, but to do so their P-
`
`T characteristics would need to approximate those of R-22 so that they could work
`
`6
`
`

`

`in the existing systems. Id. A blend with P-T characteristics markedly different
`
`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`from R-22 would not function well (if at all) in an existing apparatus. Id.
`
`By the late 1990s, varying the ratio of R-125 and R-134a in binary blends
`
`led to known and easily calculable changes in properties and performances,
`
`including changes in P-T characteristics, capacity, and COP. Id., ¶47-52. Thus, one
`
`skilled in the art would have known the characteristics and advantages of different
`
`ratios of R-125 and R-134a, and could have (and did) easily optimize for a
`
`particular variable of interest, including P-T match, COP, capacity, etc. Id., 51-52.
`
`Because of this, the art often reported ranges of concentrations for blends. Id., ¶52.
`
`One skilled in the art would immediately understand that any particular ratio in the
`
`range could be used and would be able to calculate each blend’s properties easily.
`
`Id.
`
`B.
`
`The ’840 Patent and Its Prosecution History
`
`The ’840 Patent issued on May 31, 2022, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`16/920,905 (“the ’905 application”), filed on July 6, 2020. EX1001. Generally, the
`
`‘840 Patent focuses on a refrigerant composition (or in common parlance, “blend”)
`
`used to replace R-22 in air-conditioning, refrigeration, and HVAC equipment, the
`
`blend consisting of pentafluoroethane (R-125) and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R-
`
`134a) at a ratio of 59-57% R-125 and 41-43% R-134a by weight. Some dependent
`
`claims require the refrigerant composition to be blended with a lubricant or
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`alternatively additives including an acrylic polymer, a corrosion inhibitor, a
`
`surfactant, a foaming agent, and mixtures thereof (or both a lubricant and an
`
`additive).
`
`The ’840 Patent and its ancestors copied liberally from third-party U.S.
`
`Patent 5,492,643, issued to Weber in 1996 (EX1005, “’643 Patent”), a patent
`
`covering a product that Mr. Ponder sold prior to his alleged “invention” covered by
`
`the ‘840 Patent. To create ‘840 Patent’s written description, applicants appear to
`
`have copied the text of the ‘643 Patent verbatim and simply replaced various words
`
`such as one of the refrigerants (chlorodifluoroethane (R-142b), to R-125), the
`
`specific ROYCO lubricant (783C/D to 2302), the refrigerant to be replaced (R-12
`
`to R-22), and the refrigerant blend percentages, along with other minor
`
`modifications. The prior art ‘643 Patent covered a product, RB-276, which Mr.
`
`Ponder sold before supposedly inventing the claimed invention. EX1003, ¶¶54-55;
`
`EX1020.
`
`The application that issued as the’840 Patent is a continuation of Application
`
`No. 15/989,655, filed on May 25, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,703,949 (“’949
`
`patent”), which is a continuation of Application No. 13/493,491, filed on June 11,
`
`2012, now U.S. Patent No. 9,982,179 (“’179 patent”), which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 12/961,045, filed on December 6, 2010, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,197,706 (“’706 patent”), which is a continuation of Application No. 10/937,736,
`
`8
`
`

`

`(“‘736 Application”) filed on September 8, 2004, now abandoned (collectively, the
`
`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`‘949, the ‘179, and the ‘706 Patents are the “Family Patents.”). The ’840 Patent
`
`also claims priority to provisional Application No. 60/501,049, filed on September
`
`8, 2003, which is the earliest possible date to which the ’840 Patent can claim
`
`priority. EX1001, 1:17-18.
`
`The ‘049 Provisional required a lubricant to be blended with the R-125/R-
`
`134a blend. It also claimed the refrigerant ratios as 40-45% R-125 and 60-55% R-
`
`134a. During prosecution of the ‘736 Application, applicants argued they had
`
`accidentally switched the R-125 and R-134a percentages throughout the
`
`application. See EX1006, p.15-19; EX1007, p.R03665-R03673. The Examiner
`
`objected that switching the percentages to 60-55% R-125 and 40-45% R-134a
`
`would add new matter. See EX1007, R03730-R03732. Applicants submitted a
`
`declaration by Mr. Gbur stating that the switched percentages were “obvious
`
`errors” because the P-T characteristics of the blend would shift in a recognizable,
`
`predictable way as the percentages of R-125 and R-134a changed. EX1007,
`
`R03748-R03749.
`
`During the long and tortuous prosecution for the family, the applicants
`
`continually tried to obtain broader claims, first broadening the class of lubricants
`
`and eventually shedding any requirement of a lubricant. At the same time, they
`
`9
`
`

`

`narrowed their claimed ratios to 57-59% R-125 and 43-41% R-134a, as claimed in
`
`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`the ‘840 Patent.
`
`As with the ‘179 and ‘949 Patents, the Examiner of the ’840 Patent
`
`application rejected the claims as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,207,071
`
`(“Takigawa”; EX1017), which teaches a binary blend consisting of 40-60% R-125
`
`and 60-40% R-134a. EX1002, B0074-0075. Applicants overcame the rejection by,
`
`inter alia, submitting arguments and a declaration by inventor Mr. Ponder alleging
`
`unexpected results of the particular claimed ratios of 59-57% R-125, 41-43% R-
`
`134a. EX1002, B0033-0064. The alleged unexpected results related to P-T
`
`characteristics and COP performance.
`
`As will be seen, applicants generated the P-T data (e.g., in Table 2 of the
`
`‘840 Patent and in the declaration) using the publicly-available REFPROP
`
`modeling program (or equivalent). Applicants did not rely on any actual
`
`experimental data in the specification. Mr. Ponder would tell the USPTO via an
`
`inventor’s declaration that the computer-generated, predictively-modeled P-T data,
`
`which showed the claimed 58/42% blend of R-125/R-134a had a closer P-T match
`
`to R-22 than a prior art 60/40% blend, was “unexpected.” EX1002, B0055-B0056.
`
`As will be seen, applicants generated the COP data relied on in the
`
`declaration from the publicly-available CYCLE_D predictive modeling program.
`
`Id., ¶122. Based on the data derived from CYCLE_D, applicants told the USPTO
`
`10
`
`

`

`that the COP performance of the claimed 58/42% blend was “unexpectedly” better
`
`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`
`than the prior art 60/40% blend. EX1002, B0056- B0058.
`
`The Examiner allowed the claims after the response/declaration. EX1002,
`
`B0021. The same rejection and argument/declaration response occurred in the
`
`parent ‘179 Patent and ‘949 Patent. EX1008, R05224; EX1009, R05450-5453,
`
`R05470-5504.
`
`1.
`
`IPR Petition Regarding Parent Patents
`
`Petitioner, through different counsel, petitioned for post-issuance review of
`
`the Family Patents. The earlier petitions did not include any of the prior art
`
`submitted herein (Yoshida, Thomas, and Schnur), nor anything duplicative of it.
`
`This new art, discovered after the earlier petitions were filed, explicitly teaches
`
`what the art before the Examiner and the Board did not, and what the applicants
`
`argued was “unexpected”: specifically, teaching a goal (and how to achieve the
`
`goal) of matching the P-T characteristics of the R-125/R-134a blend to that of R-
`
`22.
`
`In addition, that prior petition did not argue the alleged “unexpected results”
`
`pointed to during prosecution were in fact entirely expected and in the prior art.
`
`The earlier petitions regarding the Family Patents did not have the benefit of the
`
`new art discussed herein, and those earlier petitions merely argued that the claimed
`
`ratios of 58/42% R-125/R-134a, which differed slightly from a 60/40% blend
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
`shown in the prior art, did not have a “significant effect” on P-T characteristics and
`
`“showed no appreciable difference” on COP performance. EX1010, p.24-28.
`
`Thus, rather than showing, as this petition does, that the P-T characteristics
`
`and COP results were explicitly taught and entirely expected/predictable and
`
`known in the prior art, the former petition argued that there was no “significant,
`
`practical advantage” in the differences between the then-cited prior art and the
`
`claims. While the earlier petitions were not incorrect, they did not have the benefit
`
`of the art cited herein and also failed adequately to demonstrate the applicants’
`
`false representations that results were “unexpected.” In other words, those petitions
`
`did not show that the alleged unexpected results were in fact known and expected.
`
`Without reaching the merits of any argument submitted, the Board used its
`
`discretion to deny the petition regarding the ‘179 Patent, indicating that the prior
`
`art relied on in the earlier petition was substantially the same as that considered by
`
`the USPTO. Id., p.22. That petition, however, did not include the newly-discovered
`
`art of Yoshida, Thomas, and Schnur, which is relied on herein.
`
`2.
`Summary of the ‘840 Patent’s Admissions and
`Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The ’840 Patent admits several features are in the prior art, including:
`
` that corrosion inhibitors and acrylic polymers were known in the art.
`EX2001, 9:26-28.
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 217522-0002
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,840
`
` that supplying refrigerant compositions under pressure in a cylinder
`can fitted with an outlet compatible with an R-22 recharging manifold
`was known in the art. Id., 2:27-34.
`
` that R-22 “until recently … was the major, if not sole refrigerant, used
`in residential air-conditioners [and] refrigerators.” Id.,1:46-50.
`The ‘840 Patent contains three independent claims, 1, 5, and 9, which
`
`contain similar limitations. Claim 1 is in a Jepson format, thereby admitting the
`
`preamble is in the prior art. It further requires substituting the R-22 with a
`
`composition designed to achieve a phase change over the working temperatures
`
`and pressures in the apparatus designed for R-22. The composition must “consist
`
`of” a blend of R-125 and R-134a (though, as will be seen, additives can be
`
`present). The blend must be in ratios of 59%-57% by weight R-125 and 41%-43%
`
`by weight R-134a.
`
`Claim 9 differs from Claim 1 in that it claims the composition directly rather
`
`than including the apparatus in which it is used. Claim 5 covers a method of
`
`refilling the R-22 apparatus with the composition and specifies a step, which the
`
`patent admits is well-known, of