UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CIZION, LLC d/b/a VULCAN INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KERR MACHINE CO.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2020-00065
`Patent 10,591,070 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. TIPTON, PH.D, P.E.
`SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Page 1 of 155
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`II. Background and Qualifications ........................................................................ 4
`
`III. Bases for Opinions ........................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 7
`
`A. Patentability ................................................................................................... 7
`
`B. Prior Art ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`C. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ........................................................... 13
`
`D. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`Fluid Ends – Background And State Of The Art ........................................... 16
`
`A. Anatomy and Operation of a Plunger Pump ................................................ 16
`
`B. Seal and Packing Assembly Design Options ............................................... 21
`
`1. Packing Assembly Designs ...................................................................... 21
`
`2. Seal Designs – Types and Locations ........................................................ 26
`
`C. Causes of Fluid End Failures and the State of the Art Before the
`Invention ...................................................................................................... 35
`
`D. The Improvement of the ’070 Patent ........................................................... 38
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 40
`
`VII. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 42
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`therethrough ................................................................................................. 43
`
`tubular sleeve ............................................................................................... 44
`
`VIII. Detailed Opinions Regarding Vulcan’s Asserted Grounds ............................ 48
`
`Page 2 of 155
`
`

`

`A. Common Flaws in Vulcan’s Obviousness Analysis .................................... 48
`
`1. Transferring Wear .................................................................................... 48
`
`2. Two Options for Sealing Fluid End Components; Design and Performance
`Considerations .................................................................................................. 54
`
`3. Finite Number of Options for Packing Assemblies ................................. 56
`
`B. Flaws Specific to the Asserted Grounds ...................................................... 57
`
`1. Ground 1 – Blume ’097 ............................................................................ 57
`
`2. Ground 2 – Luharuka in view of Blume ’097 .......................................... 60
`
`3. Ground 4 - Whaley ................................................................................... 66
`
`4. Ground 5 – GD-3000 in view of Whaley ................................................. 75
`
`5. Ground 6 – GD-3000 in view of Whaley and further in view of Moeller
`
`80
`
`6. Ground 7 – Blume ’012 ............................................................................ 86
`
`7. Ground 8 – NOV-267Q in view of Blume ’012 Cannot Render the
`Challenged Claims Obvious. ........................................................................... 90
`
`IX. Conclusion ....................................................................................................102
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 155
`
`

`

`I, Steven M. Tipton, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Kerr Machine Co.
`
`(“Kerr”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to study and provide my opinions concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,591,070 (“the ’070 patent”) and the arguments and exhibits in the
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review of the ’070 patent filed by Cizion, LLC (“Vulcan”),
`
`designated Case No. PGR2020-00065 (hereafter, “the Petition”).
`
`3.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions concerning the state of
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention of the ’070 patent.
`
`4. My opinions and views set forth in this declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience in the field of fluid end design, troubleshooting,
`
`and related technical areas, as well the Petition, Petitioner’s Exhibits 1001-1044,
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002-2008 and 2023-2032, and other materials that are
`
`cited and discussed herein.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`6.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University. I
`
`have taught Mechanical Design and Senior Design Projects, along with other
`
`undergraduate and graduate mechanics and materials courses at The University of
`
`Page 4 of 155
`
`

`

`Tulsa for 36 years. I am a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering
`
`and the American Society for Materials. I was a 2010 Distinguished Lecturer for the
`
`Society of Petroleum Engineers and received the H.R. Worthington Medal from the
`
`ASME Petroleum Division in 2013. I have been an active industry consultant and
`
`hold 9 patents with another pending.
`
`7. My work as a consultant has included high-pressure equipment used in
`
`the oilfield, including work on both the power and fluid ends of positive
`
`displacement pumps. I have conducted two major research projects to study and
`
`optimize the fatigue behavior of fluid ends in positive displacement pumps. The first
`
`was from 1990-95 with Schlumberger and the Oklahoma Center for the
`
`Advancement of Science and Technology, and the second from 2011-2014 with
`
`Gardner-Denver. Both of these projects focused on optimizing the beneficial
`
`influence of autofrettage to maximize the endurance of the crossbore intersections.
`
`Understanding the stress states at other locations, including the geometry of the seal
`
`glands at all of the crossbore openings, was crucial to this research.
`
`8.
`
`I conducted a one-year sabbatical leave project with Schlumberger in
`
`1991. A major portion of this was developing a design algorithm to properly include
`
`internal and external O-ring seal glands in Acme threaded connections with
`
`prescribed safety factors against yielding due to axial loading and internal/external
`
`Page 5 of 155
`
`

`

`pressure differentials. I have also designed a number of medium pressure (e.g., 15
`
`ksi) end caps for coiled tubing fatigue test samples with internal o-ring glands.
`
`9.
`
`I have previously testified as an expert witness. A list of those matters
`
`within the last four years is attached to this declaration as part of Appendix A.
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at a rate of
`
`$425.00 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable expenses, such as travel
`
`expenses. My compensation is not contingent on my opinions, on the outcome of
`
`any matter, or on any of the technical positions I explain in this declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I have no financial interest in Vulcan, Kerr, or the ’070 patent.
`
`III. BASES FOR OPINIONS
`
`12. The opinions set forth in this declaration are my own. In forming the
`
`opinions herein, I have considered the Petition and its exhibits, the Materials
`
`Considered as well as additional exhibits cited throughout this declaration, and my
`
`education, training, and experience.
`
`13. My analysis of the materials relating to this matter is ongoing and I will
`
`continue to review any new material that is provided to me. This Declaration
`
`represents certain opinions that I have formed to date and the bases for those
`
`opinions. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions based
`
`on new information presented to me and on my continuing analysis of the materials
`
`cited throughout this Declaration and those identified in the “Materials Considered.”
`
`Page 6 of 155
`
`

`

`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`14.
`
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions, as set
`
`forth below.
`
`A. PATENTABILITY
`
`15.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be valid and
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what was
`
`known and came before it. That which was known or came before the invention
`
`claimed is generally referred to as “prior art.”
`
`16.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can show that the claim was obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field of the invention at the time the invention was made.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art,
`
`each and every element or requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that whether a claimed invention is obvious is a
`
`question of law, with underlying factual inquiries that are determined from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Page 7 of 155
`
`

`

`19.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is obvious if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”).
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness requires consideration of the
`
`following underlying factual inquiries:
`
`• determining the scope and content of the prior art
`• ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the
`prior art;
`• resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`• evaluating objective evidence or “secondary considerations” of non-
`obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved
`needs, failure of others, industry praise, and unexpected results.
`
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that a reference must be analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention in order to be properly considered for use in an obviousness
`
`inquiry. It is my understanding that a reference is analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention if:
`
`• the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or
`• the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`Page 8 of 155
`
`

`

`inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`invention).
`
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that whether a reference is reasonably pertinent
`
`turns on how the problem faced by the inventor is reflected, either explicitly or
`
`implicitly, in the specification.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that the following are exemplary rationales that
`
`may support a conclusion of obviousness:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`• Use of known techniques to improve a similar method or product in the
`same way;
`• Applying a known technique to a known method or product ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`• Obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`
`Page 9 of 155
`
`

`

`skill in the art; and
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`24.
`
`In addition to the above, I understand that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art may resort to logic, judgment and common sense available to him or her at
`
`the time of the invention to find a claim feature obvious, even if the prior art relied
`
`on does not explicitly state or teach that feature. I understand that when common
`
`sense is relied on to find a feature obvious, the reasoning for that conclusion must
`
`be articulated with sufficient clarity.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that a patent claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`An obviousness determination requires finding both that a skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. I understand that it is important to be careful not
`
`to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to produce the claimed invention,
`
`without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to
`
`produce the claimed invention.
`
`Page 10 of 155
`
`

`

`26. Regarding “objective evidence” or “secondary considerations,” I
`
`understand that for such evidence to be relevant to the obviousness of a claim, there
`
`must be a causal relationship (called a “nexus”) between the claim and the evidence.
`
`I also understand that such objective evidence may include: commercial success of
`
`products covered by the patent claims; long-felt need for the invention; failed
`
`attempts by others to solve the problem addressed by the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise
`
`of the invention; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making or use of the invention;
`
`and that the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity. I further understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out
`
`precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take into account “ordinary innovation” that does no more than yield
`
`predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would be understood to employ.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents and publications; the effects of demands known to the
`
`relevant field or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`Page 11 of 155
`
`

`

`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that if a prior art reference does not expressly set forth a
`
`particular claim element, the prior art may still disclose that element if it is “inherent”
`
`in its disclosure. To establish inherency, it is my understanding that the missing
`
`element must necessarily be present in the prior art reference. It is my understanding
`
`that inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. In other
`
`words, it is my understanding that the mere fact that a certain thing may result from
`
`a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device,
`
`in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform a claimed method, then
`
`the method will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. I also
`
`understand that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the
`
`specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will
`
`inherently perform the claimed process.
`
`B. Prior Art
`
`31.
`
`I understand that for purposes of this proceeding, prior art includes
`
`patents and printed publications in or outside the United States before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention. I also understand that prior art includes U.S.
`
`patents, published U.S. patent applications, and published international applications
`
`Page 12 of 155
`
`

`

`(pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty) that themselves have an effective filing
`
`date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as long as they name
`
`another inventor.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that prior art may include any public disclosure,
`
`including any products in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public,
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. I understand that
`
`information that constitutes prior art generally must be information that was publicly
`
`disclosed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. I understand that
`
`there may be exceptions to what is prior art but have been instructed that they are
`
`not relevant for purposes of my opinions here.
`
`C. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`33.
`
`I understand that “a person of ordinary skill in the art” or POSITA is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. Such a person would necessarily have the capability of understanding
`
`any scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`a. the educational level of the inventor;
`
`b. the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`Page 13 of 155
`
`

`

`c. prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`d. the rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`e. the sophistication of the technology; and
`
`f. the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a real person,
`
`but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors
`
`above. This hypothetical person has knowledge of all prior art in the relevant field
`
`as if it were arranged on a workshop wall and takes from each reference what it
`
`would teach to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art can collaborate
`
`with one or more other persons of ordinary skill in the art for one or more aspects
`
`with which the other person may have superior expertise, experience, and/or
`
`knowledge.
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`37.
`
`It is my understanding that claim construction, or the interpretation of
`
`the claims of a patent, is ultimately a question of law. I have been informed that
`
`claim terms are generally presumed to carry their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`However, I understand that a patent applicant is his own lexicographer and is entitled
`
`to provide alternate definitions of words in common usage, but if the patent applicant
`
`Page 14 of 155
`
`

`

`uses a term that is in common usage without providing an alternate definition, then
`
`that term should generally be understood as having its common meaning.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`a claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent specification and the “file
`
`history” of the patent developed during examination by the Patent Office.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the claims, the specification, and the file history are
`
`referred to as “intrinsic evidence,” and are to be read as a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention would have done at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`40.
`
`In addition to the intrinsic evidence, I understand that the court or
`
`tribunal may also consider other relevant evidence, which is called “extrinsic
`
`evidence,” concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms,
`
`and the state of the art. Such evidence includes the testimony of expert witnesses.
`
`Although extrinsic evidence may be used to resolve ambiguities that may exist after
`
`reviewing the intrinsic evidence, I understand that extrinsic evidence cannot be used
`
`to contradict a claim construction that is clear from the intrinsic evidence.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that some claims are independent, and that those
`
`independent claims are complete by themselves. Other claims refer to these
`
`independent claims, or other dependent claims, and are “dependent” on those claims.
`
`Page 15 of 155
`
`

`

`The dependent claims include all of the limitations of the claims on which they
`
`depend.
`
`V.
`
`FLUID ENDS – BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`
`A. ANATOMY AND OPERATION OF A PLUNGER PUMP
`
`42. The ’070 Patent is directed to problems encountered during the use of
`
`fluid ends of a high-pressure, reciprocating plunger pump. Ex-1001, 1:52-2:7, 7:7-
`
`42. When these pumps are used to pump fluids containing abrasive solids, such as
`
`hydraulic fracturing fluid containing sand or other materials used as proppants, the
`
`fluid end of the pump (the part of the pump that handles the pumped fluid, as opposed
`
`to the driver/engine/power end) are subject to erosion, resulting in leakage and costly
`
`repairs.
`
`43. Fig. 5 of Luharuka (Ex-1007), one of the prior art references Vulcan
`
`relies on in its Petition, has been annotated below to illustrate the anatomy and
`
`operations of a plunger pump. Luharuka explains these details as well. See also Ex-
`
`1007 [0020]-[0024].
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 155
`
`

`

`
`
`
`44. The fluid end body or housing has two internal conduits, known as
`
`bores. In this type of fluid end, called an “X-bore,” or “valve-over valve” design, the
`
`bores are at right angles to one another, and each passes completely through the
`
`housing from one side to the other. This allows access to the bores for maintenance
`
`(installation or repair of valves, packing, etc.).
`
`45. The first conduit (the vertical bore here) is called the “discharge bore.”
`
`This refers to the entire conduit, although fluid actually enters the fluid end at the
`
`Page 17 of 155
`
`

`

`bottom end of the discharge bore from an inlet (or suction) manifold (which is not
`
`shown), and discharges from the fluid outlet into a discharge manifold (not shown)
`
`at the other, via an internal passage from the discharge bore to the outlet that is not
`
`depicted.
`
`46. The second conduit also passes completely through the housing,
`
`forming a single conduit. In the industry, this bore is referenced as at least two
`
`different sections. The section on the left side of the figure includes the “plunger
`
`bore,” and the “packing bore,” which respectively form the passage for the plunger’s
`
`reciprocating motion and house the packing. The packing bore is axially aligned with
`
`the plunger bore, and has a larger diameter than the plunger bore, to accommodate
`
`packing between the interior wall of the second conduit and the outer surface of the
`
`plunger. The section of the second conduit on the right in the figure contains the
`
`“suction bore,” the “cover bore,” and the “retainer bore,” and is also known as the
`
`“access bore,” because it allows access to the suction valve. Although there are
`
`several different “bores,” these are merely terms of art used to reference a particular
`
`location and diameter in each conduit. There are actually only two conduits, having
`
`multiple bores of different diameter, designated based on function and location. The
`
`housing also contains an internal pumping chamber where the two bores intersect.
`
`47. On the suction or back stroke, the plunger retracts (moves toward the
`
`left in this figure) and the suction valve opens, allowing fluid to enter the internal
`
`Page 18 of 155
`
`

`

`chamber from the suction manifold. On the discharge or forward stroke, the plunger
`
`pushes forward (towards the right in this figure), causing the suction valve to close
`
`and pushing the fluid in the chamber out through the discharge valve, which opens.
`
`The fluid exits the pump housing from the fluid outlet, via an undepicted passage
`
`from the discharge bore.
`
`48. When maintenance is required, the suction and discharge covers are
`
`removed, which allows access to the internal components without (necessarily)
`
`removing the plunger.
`
`49. Generally, there are seals anywhere in a fluid end where there is a
`
`conduit or opening from the outside that penetrates into an internal fluid passageway,
`
`to keep the pumped fluid from leaking outside. Thus, there are seals around the
`
`suction cover, the discharge cover, the plunger, and the plunger packing.
`
`50. Packing is merely a term used in the industry to refer to the seals which
`
`seal the plunger itself. A synonym is “stuffing.” Unlike the other seals in a fluid end,
`
`which are static seals, the packing is designed to control leaks around a moving part
`
`(the plunger), making it a type of dynamic seal.
`
`51. There is also a seal between the packing itself and the housing (or, as
`
`discussed further below, between the packing and another component itself attached
`
`to the housing). Many different ways have been developed to seal the packing.
`
`Generally, they involve some sort of enclosure surrounding the packing, often called
`
`Page 19 of 155
`
`

`

`a packing box or stuffing box, which itself has a seal with the housing or another
`
`component. As discussed in the ’070 Patent, there are many ways to design and seal
`
`this enclosure, including the stuffing box sleeve referenced in the specification. Ex-
`
`1001, 9:64-3, 11:40-57.
`
`52. A plunger pump is a type of positive displacement pump. Positive
`
`displacement pumps are one of two general types of pumps, the other being a
`
`centrifugal pump. Positive displacement pumps move fluids by trapping a fixed
`
`volume and forcing (displacing) that volume into the discharge piping. As discussed,
`
`plunger pumps do this by using a crankshaft to drive a plunger in a reciprocating
`
`(linear) fashion toward and away from the internal chamber in the housing. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex-1010, 1:42-53.
`
`53. Centrifugal pumps move fluid by using a rotating crankshaft to drive
`
`rotating impellers, which use centrifugal force to accelerate the fluid’s velocity. The
`
`higher velocity is converted to (higher) pressure at the pump’s discharge. See id.,
`
`7:15-43. A centrifugal pump’s shaft (which is connected to the rotating impellers)
`
`rotates around its central axis during operation, unlike a plunger’s linear operation.
`
`See, e.g., Ex-1033 at 4.
`
`Page 20 of 155
`
`

`

`B. SEAL AND PACKING ASSEMBLY DESIGN OPTIONS
`1. Packing Assembly Designs
`
`54. A POSITA would have been aware of many different designs for
`
`packing assemblies (the combination of packing and other components designed to
`
`secure the packing in place). See, e.g., Ex-2023, 4:35-50. Numerous different
`
`designs are disclosed in the prior art asserted in Vulcan’s petition alone, as shown
`
`below:
`
`Design Type
`Integral Stuffing Box
`No cartridge
`
`
`Reference
`
`
`
`Blume ’097 Fig. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Separate Stuffing Box
`No cartridge
`
`
`NOV-267Q (Ex-1009) at 3.
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 155
`
`

`

`Reference
`
`
`Design Type
`Cartridge
`1-piece
`(Integral gland nut)
`Threaded
`Conical Sleeve
`“C”-end sleeve
`
`Cartridge
`2-piece
`(Removable gland nut)
`Press-fit
`Cylindrical Sleeve
`Straight-edge sleeve
`
`Cartridge
`2-piece
`(Removable gland nut)
`Press-fit
`Conical Sleeve
`“C”-end sleeve
`
`
`Blume ’097 Fig. 12A, 11:31-32
`
`
`
`
`Blume ’097 Fig. 8, 2:31-41.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Blume ’097 Fig. 15A, 15:56-53.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 155
`
`

`

`Design Type
`Removable Stuffing Box
`2-piece
`(Removable gland nut)
`Threaded
`Cylindrical Sleeve
`“Z”-end sleeve
`
`
`Cartridge
`1-piece
`(Integral gland nut)
`Threaded
`Cylindrical Sleeve
`Straight-edge sleeve
`Insert
`
`Cartridge
`2-piece
`(Removable gland nut)
`Press-fit
`Cylindrical Sleeve
`Straight-edge sleeve
`Insert
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`
`GD-3000 (Ex-1008) at 22
`
`
`
`
`Luharuka Fig. 6A
`
`
`
`
`Luharuka Fig. 6B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55. These designs differ in numerous ways. The prior art here shows two
`
`fundamental assembly types: those with and without a cartridge. Those without a
`
`cartridge use either an integral or separate stuffing box. For both types of designs,
`
`there may be numerous variables as shown in the prior art asserted here. First, the
`
`Page 23 of 155
`
`

`

`design can be either one or two pieces. One piece designs have a sleeve integral with
`
`a gland nut. Two piece designs have a gland nut and a separate cartridge or sleeve.
`
`Designs may be either press-fit or threaded into position. The cartridges may have
`
`sleeves that are cylindrical, or conical (i.e., tapered). Of course, this design also
`
`affects the design of the packing bore itself, which will likewise be cylindrical or
`
`tapered to accommodate the cartridge. Another variable is how the sleeve terminates
`
`at the seat, or how it bottoms out. As can be seen in the foregoing depictions, some
`
`sleeves have a completely straight termination. Others “wrap around” the end of the
`
`seat, and can form different types of ends. “C” style terminations, as I have termed
`
`them, form a “C” (or reverse “C”) and have an end that turns back away from the
`
`seat. Other designs may have a “Z” design, where the sleeve wraps around the
`
`packing and then continues on to a seat further inside the housing. Other shapes are
`
`of course possible. Further, as shown in Luharuka, it is possible to add elements to
`
`the cartridge, such as Luharuka’s abrasive-resistant insert. This insert can also be
`
`designed in different ways. Luharuka Fig. 6A shows the insert (200a) inside the
`
`sleeve (400a). Ex-1007 [0031]. Fig. 6B shows the insert (200b) engaged with the
`
`end of the sleeve (400b). Id. [0033].
`
`56. These are only the variables associated with the prior art asserted by
`
`Vulcan here. There are many other different designs having variations in these, as
`
`well as other, components.
`
`Page 24 of 155
`
`

`

`57. For example, a prior art patent (US. 8,100,407) (the ’407 Patent) (Ex-
`
`2023) discloses a packing cartridge comprising a cylindrical sleeve, having
`
`telescoping structures positioned between abutment rings inside the sleeve. Ex-2023,
`
`9:47-62. The patent states that its figures shows fourteen separate embodiments of
`
`this packing assembly alone. Id., 11:25-13:29.
`
`58. Furthermore, in addition to disclosing its own packing assembly design,
`
`the ’407 Patent catalogs several prior art patents on such packing assemblies. See,
`
`e.g. Ex-2023, 6:51-9:34. These include:
`
`• a packing cartridge including a sleeve and a packing assembly mounted
`in the sleeve, having a lubricating port in the sleeve to deliver lubricant
`to the packing assembly (6:60-7:3);
`• a packing assembly including front and rear packings, an intermediate
`lubricating ring, and a backup ring that prevents forward extrusion of
`the rear packing past the lubricating ring, with mating lantern ring (7:4-
`17);
`• an improved stuffing box effecting an auxiliary static seal to allow
`replacement of packing elements, having a sealing ring disposed around
`the shaft and allowing lubrication to flow between the ring and the shaft
`during operation (7:18-30);
`• a packing cartridge with packing for a stress and fatigue resistant pump
`head, and having an increased diameter cartridge and a decreased
`
`Page 25 of 155
`
`

`

`diameter high pressure seal of the packing cartridge (7:31-45);
`• a stuffing box with a tapered packing assembly in the stuffing box and
`stuffing box connection permitting easy field maintenance, and having
`seals to seal the stuffing box around the pressure chamber (7:46-8:6);
`• a minimum leakage packing system utilizing graphite as mechanical
`packing (8:32-53);
`• a stuffing box with stacked packing rings and a gland with each packing
`ring including an annular recess for t