PTAB

IPR2014-01044

InSpectIONLogic Corp v. LdArTools Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Management of Response to Triggering Events in Connection with Monitoring Fugitive Emissions
  • Brief Description: The ’384 patent discloses methods for managing responses to fugitive emissions from industrial components. The methods use a toxic vapor analyzer (TVA) to monitor for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and display messages to an operator based on whether a triggering event, such as a threshold leak detection, occurs.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 7-16 over Mouradian

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mouradian (Patent 7,588,726).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mouradian discloses every limitation of independent claim 7 and its dependent claims. Mouradian describes a vapor analysis system that operates in a "survey mode" for continuous monitoring, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed "first amount of time to monitor the component." Petitioner asserted that Mouradian’s disclosure of modulating a user indicator, such as a light or beep, upon detecting a threshold VOC concentration meets the limitation of "determining whether a deflection in a signal...has occurred." The indicator's alert serves as the claimed "first message," which prompts the operator to actuate a control to enter "sampling mode." This action, Petitioner contended, fulfills the limitation of "displaying a first message to instruct an operator to monitor the component for a second amount of time," as the sampling mode monitors for a predetermined period. Dependent claim limitations were also argued to be disclosed, such as basing the monitoring time on component type.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 7-16 over Mouradian in view of CAPCOA

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mouradian (Patent 7,588,726) and CAPCOA (California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions of Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks, 1999).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that if the Board were to find Mouradian does not explicitly teach "calculating a first amount of time," this element is supplied by CAPCOA. CAPCOA, a set of guidelines based on the EPA's Method 21, explicitly teaches a method for calculating a minimum monitoring time. It instructs a technician to move the instrument probe along a component's surface at a rate no greater than one linear inch per the instrument's known response time. Therefore, the total monitoring time is calculated based on the component's dimensions (e.g., circumference) and the instrument's response time. Petitioner contended that adding this specific calculation method from CAPCOA to the general monitoring process described in Mouradian would render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Mouradian’s apparatus with CAPCOA’s methodology to achieve predictable and regulatorily compliant results. Petitioner noted that Mouradian’s own background describes the evolution of vapor analyzers for compliance with EPA regulations that formed the basis for CAPCOA. A POSITA would have been motivated to use an advanced tool like that in Mouradian according to the specific, well-known protocols in CAPCOA to improve leak detection accuracy and ensure compliance.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved using a known testing protocol (CAPCOA) with an apparatus designed for that exact purpose (Mouradian), creating a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 7, 8, and 14-16 over Method 21

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Method 21 (EPA - Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Method 21, a foundational EPA protocol, combined with the common sense of a POSITA, renders the claims obvious. Method 21 teaches the core method steps: surveying a component by moving a probe along its surface ("first amount of time"); observing the instrument readout for an increased reading ("deflection"); and, if a leak is indicated, leaving the probe at the location of maximum reading for approximately two times the instrument's response time ("second amount of time"). Petitioner argued the increased reading itself serves as the "message" that instructs a trained operator to perform the second, longer monitoring step. For dependent claims, a POSITA would inherently understand that the initial survey time depends on the component's size and type (claim 8) and that the second monitoring period is configured to ensure an accurate reading is obtained (claim 15).
    • Motivation to Combine: This ground asserts obviousness based on a single reference as understood by a POSITA, not a combination of references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success when applying the well-established and ubiquitous Method 21 protocol for its intended purpose of detecting VOC leaks.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on the TVA Manual (a user manual for a commercial toxic vapor analyzer) and MARS (a manual for data collection software), which described similar two-stage monitoring processes triggered by an initial detection event.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • calculating: Petitioner argued for the broad construction of "to ascertain or determine in any of a variety of ways." Petitioner noted that the term does not appear in the ’384 patent’s specification and that its proposed construction was necessary to encompass prior art methods where monitoring time is determined by a technician's experience, regulatory requirements, or pre-set parameters, rather than a specific mathematical formula.
  • deflection: Petitioner proposed this term, also absent from the specification, be construed as "a noticeable elevation in a concentration reading that is above background concentration." This construction was derived from the language of claim 16 and the understanding a POSITA would have from analog leak detectors. It allows prior art that describes detecting any threshold-exceeding reading to meet the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 7-16 of Patent 7,657,384 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.