PTAB

IPR2015-00977

Arisdyne Systems Inc v. CaVitaTION Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Cavitation-Assisted Refining, Degumming and Dewaxing of Oil and Fat
  • Brief Description: The ’808 patent discloses a method for refining or degumming oils by mixing the oil with a water-phase degumming agent and then pumping the mixture through a flow-through hydrodynamic cavitation device. The resulting cavitation transfers impurities from the oil phase to the water phase, which is then separated.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Loeffler, Kozyuk, and Gosselink - Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-16 are obvious over Loeffler in view of Kozyuk and Gosselink.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Loeffler (Patent 6,001,640), Kozyuk (Patent 5,931,771), and Gosselink (Patent 6,190,538).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Loeffler taught a method for degumming vegetable oil by "intimately mixing" it with an aqueous solution using a high-shear mixer (e.g., an Ultraturrax apparatus) to form a fine emulsion with droplets preferably less than 1 micron. This process facilitates the transfer of impurities. Gosselink, along with general knowledge, taught that high-shear mixers like the one in Loeffler generate hydrodynamic cavitation. Kozyuk disclosed using efficient, flow-through hydrodynamic cavitation devices specifically to produce fine, submicron water-and-oil emulsions in a single pass. Petitioner contended that these references collectively disclosed all elements of the challenged claims, including providing a flow-through hydrodynamic cavitation device, mixing oil with a degumming agent, pumping the mixture, generating cavitational features to transfer impurities, and separating the phases.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute the efficient, purpose-built flow-through hydrodynamic cavitation device of Kozyuk for the high-shear mixer in Loeffler's method. The motivation was to improve the known degumming process by using a more efficient and cost-effective device (Kozyuk) to achieve the same goal taught by Loeffler: creating fine emulsions to maximize impurity removal. This combination represented a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both Loeffler’s high-shear mixing and Kozyuk’s device were known to produce fine emulsions via hydrodynamic cavitation. Applying Kozyuk's more efficient device to Loeffler's method would predictably achieve the desired degumming effect.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Dijkstra, Kozyuk, and Gosselink - Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-16 are obvious over Dijkstra in view of Kozyuk and Gosselink.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dijkstra (Patent 4,698,185), Kozyuk (Patent 5,931,771), and Gosselink (Patent 6,190,538).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, but used Dijkstra as the primary reference. Petitioner asserted that Dijkstra taught a degumming method that relied on creating a fine dispersion of an aqueous acid solution in oil to maximize the interface surface area for impurity removal. Dijkstra achieved this dispersion using a high-shear Ultra Turrax homogenizer, which Gosselink taught was a known method for generating hydrodynamic cavitation. As in Ground 1, Kozyuk taught using a dedicated flow-through device to achieve the same type of fine dispersion efficiently.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA seeking to optimize Dijkstra's degumming process would have been motivated to replace the energy-intensive high-shear mixer with the more efficient and advantageous flow-through hydrodynamic cavitation device taught by Kozyuk to achieve the high degree of dispersion that Dijkstra identified as critical for effective impurity removal.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because Kozyuk’s device was known to be an effective tool for creating the very fine dispersions that Dijkstra taught were essential for its method.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Bergovich, Shah, and Kozyuk II - Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-16 are obvious over Bergovich in view of Shah and Kozyuk II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bergovich (Russian Pat. App. Pub. No. RU 2333942 C1), Shah (a 1999 textbook, *Cavitation Reaction Engineering*), and Kozyuk II (Patent 5,810,052).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Bergovich disclosed a method for degumming oil using cavitational interaction generated at a specific low-frequency range of 700-1800 Hz. Petitioner argued that the Shah textbook taught that this frequency range is characteristic of hydrodynamic cavitation, not other forms like acoustic cavitation. Kozyuk II disclosed using flow-through hydrodynamic cavitation devices to efficiently produce fine emulsions. Bergovich’s teaching to use low-frequency cavitation, therefore, guided a POSITA directly to the use of hydrodynamic cavitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Bergovich’s method would have been motivated to use an efficient flow-through device as taught by Kozyuk II. Bergovich’s explicit instruction to use cavitation within the hydrodynamic frequency range, combined with its teaching away from higher-frequency forms, would lead a POSITA to select a known and efficient device like Kozyuk II's to practice the method and achieve the desired fine emulsions for degumming.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success because Bergovich taught that fine dispersions were key to its low-frequency cavitation process, and Kozyuk II demonstrated that flow-through hydrodynamic devices were well-suited to create such dispersions efficiently.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-16) based on Loeffler and Kozyuk in view of Jaroslavovich (Russian Pat. App. Pub. No. RU 2288948 C1), which was argued to provide further evidence of using flow-through cavitation devices to remove impurities from vegetable oil.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation. Key proposed constructions included:
    • "hydrodynamic cavitation": The formation of cavitation bubbles in a liquid produced by pressure variation caused by velocity variation in the system. This construction was central to distinguishing the claimed method from prior art using acoustic cavitation, while linking it to prior art using high-shear mixers.
    • "generating cavitational features": Causing cavitation bubbles to be formed in a liquid. This broad construction was used to map the teachings of prior art references that discussed creating emulsions and dispersions via high-shear forces.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-16 of the ’808 patent as unpatentable.