PTAB

IPR2015-00539

BRaden Michael R v. ChafFIN Mark

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wastewater Treatment System for Residential Septic Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’912 patent discloses a system and method for treating wastewater in a residential septic system. The system uses a pump in a storage-mixing tank to recirculate effluent through a pipe containing a venturi chamber, which creates suction to draw a liquid chlorine disinfectant from a supply canister into the effluent for disinfection before discharge.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 7, 14, 20-22, and 24 are anticipated by Braden.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Braden (Patent 6,627,071).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Braden discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The Braden reference teaches a wastewater treatment system with a pump in a tank, a recirculation pipe, and a venturi that draws disinfectant from a chlorinator. During prosecution of the ’912 patent, the patent owner distinguished Braden by arguing it did not teach certain temporal limitations, such as a supply tube in "constant fluid communication" with the chlorine supply or chlorine being "continuously drawn" for a period that "varies with the duration" of recirculation. Petitioner contended that Braden does, in fact, teach these limitations because its system continuously draws disinfectant from an inner container (30) for the entire duration of the pump-on interval, or until that inner container is exhausted.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that the patent owner improperly distinguished Braden during prosecution by focusing on the entire chlorinator assembly, including a reserve tank, rather than the claimed "chlorine supply canister" (Braden's inner container 30), from which chlorine is directly and continuously drawn.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Braden and Longley - Claims 7, 14, 20-22, and 24 are obvious over Braden in view of Longley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Braden (Patent 6,627,071) and Longley (Patent 4,333,833).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: To the extent Braden is found not to teach the "continuous" supply limitations, Longley explicitly supplies this teaching. Longley discloses an in-line contactor for wastewater treatment where an eductor (a type of venturi) is connected to a chlorinator to continuously educe (draw) disinfectant into a wastewater stream while the pump operates. Petitioner argued that Longley’s disclosure of a continuous-feed chlorinator directly addresses the alleged deficiencies identified by the patent owner in Braden.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Longley's continuous disinfectant supply system with Braden's septic tank configuration to ensure a predictable and uninterrupted supply of chlorine during pump activation. This combination merely applies a known technique (Longley’s continuous feed) to a similar system (Braden’s) to achieve a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves integrating well-understood components (venturi injectors, pumps, disinfectant supplies) that were known to work together for wastewater treatment.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Agueda and Longley - Claims 7, 14, 20-22, and 24 are obvious over Agueda in view of Longley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Agueda (Patent 5,266,216) and Longley (Patent 4,333,833).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Agueda discloses a water purification system having the same core structure as the challenged claims: a holding tank, a submersible pump, and a recirculation pipe with a venturi-type mixer. Agueda uses this system to draw ozone gas into the water for purification. Petitioner argued that Agueda teaches all limitations except for the use of a chlorine supply canister. Longley provides this missing element by teaching a chlorinator connected to a venturi injector for disinfecting wastewater.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute the well-known and widely used chlorine disinfection system from Longley for the ozone generator in Agueda. This represents a simple substitution of one known disinfectant and delivery system for another to perform the identical function of water purification, which would have been an obvious design choice to an artisan in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution would yield the predictable result of disinfecting water with chlorine, as the underlying principles of using a venturi to draw a disinfectant into a water stream are identical in both Agueda and Longley.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on Sweet (Patent 6,306,304) combined with Longley, relying on a similar substitution theory where Longley's chlorinator would be adapted to Sweet's aerobic treatment system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms to argue that the prior art meets the claim limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
  • "Metering": Construed as "to give a measured amount or controlled flow of the fluid."
  • "In communication with": Construed as "connected to."
  • "Constant": Construed as "continuous" or "without interruption." This construction is central to Petitioner’s argument that Braden’s system, which supplies chlorine for a finite but uninterrupted period, meets the claim language.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 7, 14, 20-22, and 24 of the ’912 patent as unpatentable.