EX 1019
`EX 1019
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ASCEND ELEMENTS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`DUESENFELD GMBH
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Patent No. 11,050,097
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 2213-1450
`
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’097 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 11,050,097 ................................................... 4
`B.
`Challenged claims ...................................................................................... 6
`III.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 10
`VI. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................................................. 11
`A. Ground 1 — The petition fails to prove that Hanisch ’419 alone or
`in combination with Dunagan renders the Challenged Claims
`unpatentable .............................................................................................. 11
`Overview of Hanisch ’419 .................................................................. 12
`Claim 1[b]: The low temperature pre-dryer of Hanisch ’419
`alone or in view of a POSITA does not teach “inactivating the
`comminuted material such that an inactivated comminuted
`material is obtained” ............................................................................ 14
`Claim 1[e]: Hanisch ’419 alone or in view of a POSITA does
`not teach “wherein the drying occurs at a maximum pressure of
`300 hPa” .............................................................................................. 17
`Claim 9: Hanisch ’419 alone does not render obvious “The
`method according to claim 1 wherein drying occurs at a
`temperature of less than 80° C” .......................................................... 21
`Claim 12[d]: Hanisch ’419 alone or in combination with
`Dunagan does not render obvious “a vacuum installation
`connected to the drying device and configured to generate a
`vacuum in the drying device” .............................................................. 22
`Ground 2 — The Petition fails to prove that Hanisch ’419 in view
`of Dunagan, Meador, Shin, and/or Hayashi renders the Challenged
`Claims unpatentable ................................................................................. 24
`Overview of Meador ........................................................................... 25
`
`5.
`
`1.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Overview of Hayashi ........................................................................... 28
`Overview of Shin ................................................................................. 29
`Claim 1[e]: Hanisch ’419 alone or in view of Hayashi, Meador,
`or Shin does not render obvious “wherein the drying occurs at a
`maximum pressure of 300 hPa” .......................................................... 30
`Hanisch ’419 alone or in view of a POSITA does not
`disclose this limitation.................................................................... 30
`A POSITA would not combine Hanisch ’419 and Dunagan
`with Meador, Shin, or Hayashi ...................................................... 31
`A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Meador
`with Hanisch ’419 ..................................................................... 31
`(1) A POSITA would have understood that Meador does
`not teach using a vacuum level of less than 300 hPa .......... 31
`(2) A POSITA would not combine Meador with the
`system of Hanisch ’419 to teach a vacuum level of
`less than 300 hPa .................................................................. 35
`Hayashi teaches away from Hanisch ’419 and a POSITA
`would not be motivated to combine these references ............... 37
`(1) The continuous processing requirement of Hanisch
`imposes constraints on the pressure ranges that would
`be compatible ....................................................................... 38
`(2) Hayashi’s batch process is incompatible with Hanisch
`’419, and its pressure ranges are uninformative .................. 42
`(3) A POSITA would not look to Hayashi to learn
`advantages of improved electrolyte evaporation at a
`given temperature when lower ambient pressures are
`used ...................................................................................... 44
`(4) A POSITA would not look to Hayashi to achieve the
`attenuation of toxic hydrogen fluoride production
`during the heating process ................................................... 46
`(5) A POSITA would not look to Hayashi to achieve
`control over potentially flammable compounds and
`gasses generated during heating .......................................... 47
`(6) The fundamental premise of Hayashi teaches away
`from Hanisch ’419 ............................................................... 48
`
`ii
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`iii.
`
`Shin teaches away from Hanisch ’419 and a POSITA
`would not be motivated to combine .......................................... 50
`Claim 12[d]: Hanisch ’419 alone or in view of Hayashi,
`Meador, or Shin does not render obvious “a vacuum installation
`connected to the drying device and configured to generate a
`vacuum in the drying device” .............................................................. 52
`Objective indicia of non-obviousness support patentability .................... 55
`Secondary considerations compel a finding of non-obviousness ....... 55
`Long-felt but unmet need and unexpected results .............................. 55
`Duesenfeld’s battery recycling processes practice the
`challenged claims ................................................................................ 57
`Duesenfeld’s battery recycling processes have been
`commercially successful ..................................................................... 58
`Rebuttable presumption of nexus ........................................................ 60
`5.
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`4.
`
`iii
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.,
`963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376
`(2021) .................................................................................................................. 44
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 48
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombadier Recreational Prods., Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 53
`Chemours, Co. FC v. Daikin Indus.,
`4 F.4th 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 61
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 61
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 62
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 10
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 60
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 61
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 11
`In re Piasecki,
`745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 55
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 17
`
`iv
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 10
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 44
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 44
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................... 8, 10
`SightSound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 60
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 49
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 60
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling
`USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 55
`Unified Pats. Inc. v. Velos Media, LLC,
`No. IPR2019-00883, 2019 WL 6999079 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2019) ............ 17, 24
`Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc.,
`97 F.4th 882 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ............................................................................. 50
`Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC v. Brunswick Corp.,
`81 F.4th 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 61
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 60, 61
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15-16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2022) ......................... 11, 18
`
`v
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC,
`69 F.4th 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 61
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 312(a)(3) .......................................................................................................... 11
`§ 316 .................................................................................................................... 63
`§ 316(e) ............................................................................................................... 11
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R.
`42.100(b) ............................................................................................................... 8
`§ 42.1(d) .............................................................................................................. 11
`§ 42.65(a) ............................................................................................................ 11
`83 Fed. Reg. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018) ............................................................................... 8
`Duesenfel Company Website
`https://www.duesenfeld.com/recycling_en.html ................................................ 62
`Regulation 2023/1542, 2023 O.J. (L191/1) (EU) .................................................... 59
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`(CUMULATIVE)
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Vani Dantam in support of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response to the Petition (“Dantam Declaration”)
`
`Ex. 2002 Gao Liu et al., Binder Interactions in the Electrodes of the Lithium-
`ion Batteries, TFUG Conference, February 17, 2009 (“Gao”)
`
`Ex. 2003 DE 102012024876 A1 to Electrocycling GmbH (“Electrocycling”)
`(English)
`
`Ex. 2004 U.S. Patent No. 7,198,865 to Sloop (“Ecobat”)
`
`Ex. 2005 WO 2010/149611 A1 to LiMotive Company Ltd. (“LiMotive”)
`(English)
`
`Ex. 2006 WO 2010/149611 A1 to LiMotive Company Ltd. (“LiMotive”)
`(German)
`Ex. 2007 DE 102012024876 A1 to Electrocycling GmbH (“Electrocycling”)
`(German)
`
`Ex. 2008 Yang et al., Thermal Stability of LiPF6 Salt and Li-Ion Battery
`Electrolytes Containing LiPF6, Journal of Power Sources 161, 573
`(2006) (Preprint) (“Yang”)
`
`Ex. 2009 Gnanaraj et al., A Detailed Investigation of the Thermal Reactions of
`LiPF6 Solution in Organic Carbonates Using ARC and DSC, Journal
`of the Electrochemical Society, 150(11), A1533 (2003) (“Gnanaraj”)
`
`Ex. 2010 Certification of Translation of the Electrocycling Patent
`
`Ex. 2011 Certification of Translation of the Limotive Patent
`
`Ex. 2012 Duesenfeld GmbH Website – Recycling
`[https://www.duesenfeld.com/recycling_en.html]
`
`Ex. 2013 Ascend Elements Press Release
`
`Ex. 2014 Ascend Elements, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint, Case No. 1-23-cv-
`01194 (D. Del.)
`
`vii
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`Ex. 2015 Scheduling Order in Case No. 23-1194-JFM
`
`Ex. 2016 Email from J.Stiel to J.Ploger (dated Dec. 6, 2023)(German)
`
`Ex. 2017 Email from J.Stiel to J.Ploger (dated Dec. 6, 2023)(English)
`
`Ex. 2018 Certification of Translation of Email from J.Stiel to J.Ploger (dated
`Dec. 6, 2023) and of Kwade, et al. (Ex. 2020, below)
`
`Ex. 2019 Christian Hanish et al., Recycling von Lithium-Ionen-Batterien – das
`Projekt LithoRec, Recycling und Rohstoffe, January 2012 (“Kwade,
`et al.”) (German)
`
`Ex. 2020 Christian Hanish et al., Recycling von Lithium-Ionen-Batterien – das
`Projekt LithoRec, Recycling und Rohstoffe, January 2012 (“Kwade,
`et al.”) (English)
`
`Ex. 2021 Yang et al., Thermal Stability of LiPF6 Salt and Li-Ion Battery
`Electrolytes Containing LiPF6, Journal of Power Sources 161, 573
`(2006)
`
`Ex. 2022 Declaration of Vani Dantam in support of Patent Owner’s Response
`to the Petition (“Dantam POR Declaration”)
`
`Ex. 2023 Duesenfeld GmbH v. Ascend Elements, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01194-JFM
`(D. Del. Oct. 30, 2024), ECF No. 62
`
`
`Ex. 2024 Deposition transcript of Walter van Schalkwijk, dated February 6,
`2025
`
`
`Ex. 2025
`
` N. Somsuk et al., Design and Development of a Rotary Airlock
`Valve for using in Continuous Pyrolysis Process to Improve
`Performance, 2010 International Conference on Manufacturing
`Science and Technology (ICMST 2010)
`
`Ex. 2026 Water boiling point as function of absolute pressure available at:
`https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-evacuation-pressure-
`temperature-d_1686.html
`
`
`viii
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`Ex. 2027 DIN 24 800 (English)
`
`Ex. 2028 DIN 24 800 (German)
`
`Ex. 2029 Certificate of Translation for DIN 24 800
`
`Ex. 2030 Bin-Dicator® Installation & Operation Manual (2013)
`
`Ex. 2031 Screenshot of Meyer Rotary Valve Basics video available at:
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwjyRePPIt4
`
`Ex. 2032 Boiling point for DMC, available at:
`https://www.univarsolutions.com/dimethyl-carbonate-
`5004710?srsltid=AfmBOorjj92rfTGG8ShR_L1YJ7zHq_
`g7jd5HIM9uvXuqBooKXSIVZw8a
`
`Ex. 2033 Boiling point for EMC, available at:
`https://www.msesupplies.com/products/high-purity-ethyl-methyl-
`carbonate-c-4-h-8-o-3-99-99-
`4n?srsltid=AfmBOoqUr1g_4hUH5zYLI-kjf8M3Z-
`cqlnYULkbD2h_WRok0GU30TOI
`
`Ex. 2034 Vacuum Guide, available at: https://www.vacuum-
`guide.com/english/equipment/evacuation_time_vacuum_pump_sizin
`g.htm
`
`Ex. 2035 U.S. Patent No. 5,405,231 (“Kronberg”)
`
`Ex. 2036 Confidential Appendix C to Declaration of Vani Dantam
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2037 Confidential Appendix D to Declaration of Vani Dantam
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2038 Screenshots of YouTube Duesenfeld plant video found at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Ij4Emz8XQ (“How to recycle
`lithium-ion batteries? – Closing the loop in e-mobility”, Dec. 6,
`2023)
`
`
`ix
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`Ex. 2039 Meyer Rotary Valve Basics Video Transcript, available at:
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwjyRePPIt4
`
`Ex. 2040 Declaration of Lydia Grote in support of Patent Owner’s Response
`to the Petition (“Grote POR Declaration”)
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2041 Duesenfeld GmbH Wendeburg plant processing conditions
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2042 German regulations available at
`https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Abfal
`lwirtschaft/kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz_en_bf.pdf
`(English translation)
`
`Ex. 2043 Certification from Braunschweig State Trade Supervisory Office to
`Duesenfeld (German)
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2044 Certification from Braunschweig State Trade Supervisory Office to
`Duesenfeld (English)
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2045 Translation Certification of Certification from Braunschweig State
`Trade Supervisory Office to Duesenfeld
`
`
`Ex. 2046 Duesenfeld GmbH Preliminary Financial Statements 2021 and 2022
`(German)
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2047 Duesenfeld GmbH Preliminary Financial Statements 2021 and 2022
`(English)
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`x
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`Ex. 2048 Translation Certificates - Duesenfeld GmbH Preliminary Financial
`Statements 2021 and 2022
`
`Ex. 2049 License Agreement
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2050 License Agreement
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL]
`
`Ex. 2051 Press Release: Seval and Riplastic will be the first industrial
`operators in Italy for the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, dated
`June 11, 2024
`
`Ex. 2052 Press Release: Andritz and Duesenfeld sign cooperation agreement
`for battery recycling, dated February 10, 2025
`
`
`Ex. 2053 Duesenfeld Brochure: Ecofriendly Recycling of Lithium-Ion
`Batteries
`
`
`
`xi
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The ’097 Patent solved an important problem in battery recycling: how to
`
`improve the hazardous process of recycling used batteries in a safer way that is
`
`suitable for transport that minimizes the production of toxic byproducts. Ex. 2022,
`
`¶¶49-51, 58-63. Prior methods for recycling battery materials introduced foreign
`
`substances that contaminate recoverable materials. Id., ¶58, 52-57. The inventors
`
`of the ’097 Patent discovered that comminuting (shredding) the batteries and then
`
`drying the comminuted material at a pressure at or below 300 hPa could safely
`
`inactivate the battery material. Id., ¶¶58-59. Moreover, by performing the drying
`
`under 80°C, the inventors were able to suppress the generation of a toxic compound,
`
`hydrogen fluoride, which is corrosive, potentially explosive, and extremely
`
`hazardous to humans. Ex. 2022, ¶¶47, 58.
`
`Petitioner Ascend Elements, Inc. (“Ascend” or “Petitioner”) challenges
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 13, 19 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,050,097 (“the ’097 Patent”) as allegedly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this
`
`inter partes review proceeding. The Board instituted trial as to all Challenged
`
`Claims. Institution Decision (“Decision”), 38.
`
`In its Decision, the Board correctly found that Ascend did not carry its burden
`
`under Ground 1. The Board’s ruling was supported by three key findings:
`
`1
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`
`• The Board concluded that Petitioner failed to show that the pre-dryer in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,780,419 (“Hanisch ’419”) would inactivate the
`
`comminuted battery material. Rather, this low temperature pre-dryer
`
`removes some quantity of solvent, but is not designed to inactivate the
`
`material. Instead, the partially dried material is transferred to a
`
`pyrolysis oven, where residual solvent is destroyed. Decision, 13.
`
`• The Board concluded that Petitioner failed to present evidence that a
`
`POSITA would have used a vacuum level at or below 300 hPa in
`
`connection with the decomposition oven of Hanisch ’419. Decision,
`
`15-16.
`
`• The Board concluded that Petitioner failed to show that Hanisch ’419
`
`discloses a “vacuum installation” connected to the decomposition oven,
`
`for purposes of Claim 12. Decision, 19.
`
`The Board nonetheless instituted the IPR, relying on Ground 2 of the Petition.
`
`Through Ground 2, Petitioner seeks to combine Hanisch ’419 with the teachings of
`
`one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,632,863 to Meador (“Meador”); 9,843,077 to
`
`Hayashi et al. (“Hayashi”); or 10,396,408 to Shin et al. (“Shin”). However, a
`
`POSITA would not have combined any of these references with Hanisch ’419 to
`
`perform vacuum drying below 300 hPa. Ex. 2022, ¶¶111-183. Briefly:
`
`• Meador is directed to a battery processing plant that comminutes the batteries
`
`2
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`and then runs them through a continuous process for pyrolysis. Ex. 2022,
`
`¶¶112-118. Petitioner’s expert confirmed in deposition that the pressure
`
`levels in Meador’s plant would be about a half-inch of mercury relative to
`
`atmospheric pressure, contrary to Petitioner’s argument to the Board. Ex.
`
`2024, 68:1-73:4. Meador actually teaches away from vacuum drying at a
`
`maximum pressure of 300 hPa. Ex. 2022, ¶¶138-139.
`
`• Hayashi neither comminutes batteries, nor inactivates comminuted material.
`
`Ex. 2022, ¶¶55, 121-125. Hayashi teaches removing the fluorine from
`
`individual battery cells, by adding water to the cells to deliberately provoke
`
`the formation of hydrogen fluoride gas, which is then sequestered. Ex. 2022,
`
`¶¶121-123. Hayashi teaches a batch process that cannot be combined with the
`
`continuous system of Hanisch ’419 to supply the latter’s missing vacuum level
`
`teaching. Ex. 2022, ¶¶124, 182. And Hayashi teaches away from Hanisch
`
`’419, because Hayashi says that batteries must be detoxified before further
`
`processing. Ex. 2022, ¶¶162-172.
`
`• Shin discloses treatment of whole batteries. Ex. 2022, ¶¶126-128. Shin’s
`
`reaction reservoir is placed under strong vacuum to remove oxygen, after
`
`which the system is filled with nitrogen gas. The batteries are then heated
`
`until they rupture, venting poisonous gases. Ex. 2022, ¶128. Shin does not
`
`teach processing of the batteries under vacuum – to the contrary, Shin teaches
`
`3
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 15
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`adding nitrogen gas to the reaction chamber, which would neutralize the
`
`vacuum. Ex. 2022, ¶¶173-179.
`
`Accordingly, for the legal and factual reasons set forth herein, all of
`
`Petitioner’s adopted grounds of unpatentability fail, and the Board should issue a
`
`final written decision confirming the patentability of all Challenged Claims.
`
`II. THE ’097 PATENT
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 11,050,097
`The inventions claimed in the ’097 patent improved the recycling of batteries
`
`by inactivating shredded batteries through the drying process itself, specifically by
`
`vacuum drying at a maximum pressure of 300 hPa, and, as in claim 9, preferably at
`
`a temperature below 80ºC. Ex. 2022, ¶¶58-63. No prior art reference or combination
`
`taught this approach. Prior methods introduced foreign substances to inactivate
`
`shredded batteries, used only a slight vacuum to ventilate gases, or used high heat
`
`during the drying process. Id., ¶¶51-57. Unlike the prior art, the ’097 patent does
`
`not teach wet processing or adding contaminants to the comminuted material, nor
`
`does it teach opening up the entire battery and removing the electrolyte. Id., ¶¶58-
`
`63. Instead, the inventors of the ’097 patent discovered that additives, as used in the
`
`prior art, were unnecessary and contaminated and compromised the quality of the
`
`recycled product. Id., ¶¶57-63. The inventors further recognized that avoiding high
`
`4
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 16
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`heat during the drying process suppressed the formation of toxic gases, particularly
`
`hydrogen fluoride. Id., ¶¶58-63; Ex. 1001, 2:5-12.
`
`The inventors employed this drying process to generate dried, shredded
`
`battery material, which was chemically inert and could be safely stored and shipped.
`
`Shredded material is rendered “inactivated” after the drying process is complete. Ex.
`
`Ex. 2022, ¶¶58-63; Ex. 1001, 8:54-55 (“The drying of the comminuted material
`
`results in inactivated comminuted material.”). The ’097 patent describes and claims
`
`methods and installations that provide an efficient, low-cost way of recovering spent
`
`battery material with high purity and rendering it safe for transport by inactivating
`
`the comminuted battery material using a vacuum drying process. Ex. 1001, 1:63-
`
`2:4, 1:64-2:12; Ex. 2022, ¶¶59, 61-63.
`
`The specification teaches how to obtain inactivated comminuted material that
`
`is suitable for transport. Ex. 1001, 1:64-2:12. The specification emphasizes drying
`
`under low pressure, while avoiding high temperatures. Ex. 1001, 3:7-9 (“It is
`
`beneficial if the drying occurs at a maximum pressure of 300 hPa, in particular a
`
`maximum of 100 hPa.”); id., 5:7-8 (“The drying preferably occurs at a maximum
`
`temperature of 80° C.: this produces almost no hydrogen fluoride.”). These
`
`conditions contribute to safe inactivation of electrolytes and associated solvents
`
`without forming hydrogen fluoride. Ex. 2022, ¶¶58-59; Ex. 1001, 3:9-14.
`
`5
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 17
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`The comminuted material is dried until its electrolyte content is low enough
`
`that the material becomes inactivated. Ex. 2022, ¶¶58-63; Ex. 1001, 4:5-7. The
`
`inactivated comminuted material is safe for transport, and thus can be filled into a
`
`transport container and safely shipped. Ex. 2022, ¶60; Ex. 1001, 8:56-58.
`
`B. Challenged claims
`Claim 1 of the ’097 patent recites:
`
`1. A method for the treatment of used batteries,
`comprising the steps:
`(a) comminuting the batteries such that comminuted
`material is obtained;
`(b) inactivating the comminuted material such that an
`inactivated comminuted material is obtained, wherein
`the inactivating step is performed during or after the
`comminuting step; and
`(c) filling a transport container with the inactivated
`comminuted material;
`wherein the inactivating step is performed by
`drying the comminuted material, and
`
`wherein the drying occurs at a maximum pressure
`of 300 hPa.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:45-59.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-3 and 7-10 add additional limitations. Id.,
`
`10:60-11:47. Dependent Claim 9, which is specifically discussed herein,
`
`recites: “The method according to claim 1 wherein drying occurs at a
`
`temperature of less than 80° C.” Ex. 1001, 11:26-27.
`
`6
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 18
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`Independent claim 12 recites:
`
`12. A battery processing installation for
`treatment of used batteries, comprising:
`(a) a comminution unit configured to comminute
`the batteries such that comminuted material is
`obtained;
`(b) an inactivation device comprising a drying
`device configured to inactivate the
`comminuted material, wherein the
`inactivation device is configured to perform
`the inactivating step during or after the
`comminuting step of the comminution unit;
`(c) a filling device configured to fill a test transport
`container with the inactivated comminuted
`material; and
`(d) a vacuum installation connected to the drying
`device and configured to generate a vacuum
`in the drying device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:50-62.
`
`Dependent Claims 13 and 19 add additional limitations. Ex. 1001, 11:62-
`
`12:62.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’097 patent
`
`would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, materials
`
`science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years
`
`of academic or industry experience in the recycling or processing of lithium-ion
`
`batteries. See Ex. 2022, ¶17. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s contention
`
`7
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 19
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`regarding the appropriate level of skill in the art in the field of the ’097 patent. See
`
`Ex. 2022, ¶¶18-23. The Board adopted Patent Owner’s assessment of the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed assessment,
`
`which would have required a Master’s degree and three to five years of experience.
`
`See Decision, 7-8. Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA aligns more
`
`closely with the skill level of the inventors, who included graduate students who did
`
`not yet have advanced degrees. Ex. 2022, ¶¶17-23.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In inter partes review proceedings, the words of the claim are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc); 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`In its Decision, the Board did not expressly construe any claim terms.
`
`Decision, 9. However, the Board described its preliminary understanding of the term
`
`“inactivating” to “require the removal of sufficient amounts of dimethyl carbonate
`
`and/or ethyl methyl carbonate from the comminuted material to make an
`
`electrochemical reaction either no longer possible or only possible to a negligibly
`
`small extent.” Id., 12.
`
`8
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 20
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`Patent Owner disagrees with the Board’s proposed construction. Duesenfeld
`
`and Ascend jointly agreed in the pending litigation that the following terms should
`
`be understood to have their plain and ordinary meaning:
`
`• “drying the comminuted material” (claims 1, 2, 7, 13) should have its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, which is removing at least one solvent from
`
`the comminuted material.
`
`• “drying device configured to inactivate the comminuted material”
`
`(claim 12) shall have its plain and ordinary meaning, which is a device
`
`configured to produce inactivated comminuted material as a result of
`
`drying.
`
`Ex. 2023.
`
`As properly construed by the District Court, inactivation is the “result” of
`
`drying. Id. The patent specification recites various metrics for determining if that
`
`result has been reached, such as if no flammable gas can form above the dried
`
`material (Ex. 1001, 3:49-4:4); or if no electrochemical reaction is possible in the
`
`dried material (4:5-18); or if there is no build-up of heat (4:19-27); or if the
`
`electrolyte concentration is below a specified threshold (4:28-36). The Board
`
`erroneously picked among these metrics and selected a single metric as defining the
`
`endpoint of inactivation (i.e., that no electrochemical reaction is possible).
`
`9
`
`Ascend Elements EX1019 Page 21
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00948
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,097
`Decision, 12. Selecting that metric, to the exclusion of the others, is error, and
`
`violates at least two canons of claim construction.
`
`First, it is improper to limit the scope of a claim term to a single embodiment
`
`in the specification. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the
`
`claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has
`
`demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions
`
`of manifest exc