PTAB

IPR2017-01349

Fuel Automation Station, LLC v. Frac Shack Inc.

Title: Automated Fuel Delivery System
Brief Description: The ’662 patent discloses a system for automated fuel delivery to multiple pieces of equipment, such as at a well site during fracturing operations. The system comprises a fuel supply, one or more manifolds with multiple outlets, electrically operable valves, hoses, sensors to detect fuel levels, and a controller that manages fuel flow in response to sensor signals.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Toshio (JP 2003002400A), Griswold (Patent 599,702), and Hose Handbook (copyright 2003).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Toshio discloses every structural element of independent claim 1 except for the use of "hoses," as Toshio teaches a nearly identical system using "pipes." Toshio's system includes a fuel source, a manifold with multiple outlets, electrically operable valves on each outlet, sensors to detect low fuel conditions, and a controller responsive to the sensors to open or close valves accordingly.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Griswold and the Hose Handbook establish that hoses were a well-known and interchangeable alternative to pipes for fluid conveyance. A POSITA would combine these teachings by substituting hoses for pipes in Toshio's system to gain the known benefits of flexibility, portability, and ease of installation, particularly in environments where rigid piping is impractical.
- Expectation of Success: The substitution of one known fluid conduit (pipe) for another (hose) was argued to be a simple design choice with predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Toshio, Griswold/Hose Handbook, and Witter (Application # 2008/0313006).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Ground 1A to address claim 3, which adds a controller "configured to log fuel requirements." Petitioner cited Witter for its disclosure of managing emergency power supply systems, which includes a controller that monitors and logs fuel consumption rates for engine-generators to provide operational data and predict time-to-empty.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Witter's logging functionality with the Toshio system to enhance fuel management. This would allow for predicting refueling needs and tracking consumption, which Petitioner argued was a known technique for improving such fuel delivery systems and would provide a clear benefit.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Toshio, Griswold/Hose Handbook, and McCauley (Patent 2,340,070).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 2 ("more than one manifold") and claim 6 ("manually operable" valve). Petitioner cited McCauley for teaching a fuel system for filling multiple aircraft fuel tanks that explicitly uses two manifolds to serve different groups of tanks. McCauley also discloses that flow from the manifold may be controlled by manually operable valves for safety.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSA would be motivated to use multiple manifolds as taught by McCauley as a form of simple duplication to service more equipment or fill tanks faster. Likewise, adding manual valves would be an obvious safety improvement to provide a redundant shut-off mechanism, a known practice in fluid handling.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against the remaining dependent claims based on combinations including Lohmann (WO 2009/068065) for teaching the use of pressure gauges, McNabb (Patent 5,927,603) for teaching the display of low-fuel indications, Applicant's Admitted Prior Art for applying the system to a well site, and Taylor (Patent 3,688,795) for teaching a specific fuel cap structure.

"manifold" (claims 1, 2): Petitioner proposed the construction "a common pipe or chamber having more than one outlet," based on its common dictionary definition and consistent use in the specification.
"set up for delivery of fuel at a well site during fracturing of a well" (claim 7): Petitioner argued this phrase is a non-limiting statement of intended use that adds no structural elements to the apparatus of claim 1. It proposed the construction "positioned for fluid delivery."
"cap" (claim 12): Petitioner argued for the plain and ordinary meaning of "a cover or protection for something," resisting any narrower interpretation imported from specific embodiments in the specification.
Preamble (claim 1): Petitioner contended that the preamble of claim 1 is not a limitation because it merely states the intended purpose for a structurally complete invention that is fully defined in the claim body.

Analogous Art and Intended Use: A central argument was that the intended environment of the ’662 patent (a "work site" or "well site") cannot confer patentability over a prior art system with the same structural elements intended for a different environment (e.g., Toshio's system for a building). Petitioner asserted that apparatus claims are defined by their structure, not their use or the environment in which they operate.
Simple Substitution of Known Elements: Petitioner repeatedly argued that modifying the primary reference (Toshio) involved simple substitutions of well-known components. The most significant example was replacing Toshio's pipes with hoses, which was presented as a predictable and common design choice for a POSITA in the field of fluid handling, not an inventive step.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 9,346,662 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.