PTAB

IPR2017-01349

Fuel Automation Station LLC v. Frac Shack Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Fuel Delivery System
  • Brief Description: The ’662 patent discloses an automated fuel delivery system for supplying fuel to multiple pieces of equipment at a work site. The system comprises a fuel source, one or more manifolds with multiple outlets, hoses, electrically operable valves, sensors to detect low fuel conditions, and a controller that automatically opens valves to refuel equipment as needed.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Toshio and Griswold/Hose Handbook - Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are obvious over Toshio in view of Griswold or Hose Handbook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Toshio (JP 2003002400A), Griswold (Patent 599,702), and Hose Handbook (a 2003 industry publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Toshio, a Japanese patent describing a centralized kerosene distribution system for a building, disclosed every element of independent claim 1 except for the use of "hoses" to connect the manifold to the equipment. Toshio taught an analogous system with a fuel supply, manifold, electrically operable valves, sensors for low/high fuel levels, and a controller that automatically opened valves in response to low-fuel signals. However, Toshio used rigid "pipes" for fluid conveyance.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Griswold and the Hose Handbook both established that hoses were a well-known and interchangeable alternative to pipes for conveying fluids. A POSITA would combine Toshio with this knowledge for the predictable benefits of using hoses, such as increased flexibility, portability, ease of installation, and vibration absorption, as taught by the Hose Handbook. Griswold explicitly taught substituting a hose for a pipe in a similar kerosene distribution system for safety and convenience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as substituting a known element (hoses) for another (pipes) to perform the same function (fluid conveyance) was a simple and routine design choice that would yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Toshio, Griswold/Hose Handbook, and Witter - Claim 3 is obvious over Toshio in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and Witter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Toshio (JP 2003002400A), Griswold (Patent 599,702) or Hose Handbook, and Witter (Application # 2008/0313006).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Toshio and Griswold/Hose Handbook to address dependent claim 3, which added a controller "configured to log fuel requirements of each piece of the multiple pieces of equipment." Petitioner asserted that Witter taught a fuel management system for emergency power generators that included a controller that monitored and logged fuel consumption rates. Witter's system used this data to predict time-to-empty and identify usage patterns.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the logging and monitoring capabilities of Witter with the automated delivery system of Toshio to improve it. The motivation was to add a known technique—logging fuel consumption—to gain the recognized benefits of enhanced fuel management, such as predicting refueling needs and tracking usage, which would be an obvious improvement to Toshio’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known improvement (logging) from a similar system (Witter's fuel management) to a base device (Toshio's delivery system), which would predictably result in a system with the combined functionalities of both.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Toshio, Griswold/Hose Handbook, and McCauley - Claims 2 and 6 are obvious over Toshio in view of Griswold/Hose Handbook and McCauley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Toshio (JP 2003002400A), Griswold (Patent 599,702) or Hose Handbook, and McCauley (Patent 2,340,070).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 2 (requiring "more than one manifold") and claim 6 (requiring a "manually operable" valve on each fuel outlet). Petitioner argued that McCauley, which disclosed a fuel system for filling multiple aircraft fuel tanks, taught the use of multiple manifolds to serve different groups of tanks concurrently. McCauley also explicitly taught that flow from the manifold could be controlled by "manually operable valves" as a safety feature to prevent fire and contamination.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add multiple manifolds to Toshio to increase the system's capacity and filling speed, an obvious matter of scaling up by duplicating parts. Furthermore, a POSITA would add manual valves to the automated system of Toshio as a redundant safety measure, a common practice in fluid handling systems taught by McCauley to mitigate fire hazards.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known elements from McCauley with Toshio would predictably result in a larger-capacity system with an added layer of manual safety control, with each element performing its known function.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Lohmann (WO 2009/068065) for adding pressure gauges, McNabb (Patent 5,927,603) for displaying low-fuel condition indications, and Taylor (Patent 3,688,795) for adding a fuel tank cap.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "manifold" (claims 1, 2): Petitioner proposed the construction "a common pipe or chamber having more than one outlet." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s figures and its plain and ordinary meaning, ensuring the term was not improperly limited.
  • "set up for delivery of fuel at a well site..." (claim 7): Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed as "positioned for fluid delivery" and treated as a non-limiting statement of intended use. Petitioner contended the phrase added no structural elements to the apparatus of claim 1 and that apparatus claims are defined by what a device is, not where or how it is used.
  • "cap" (claim 12): Petitioner proposed the plain and ordinary meaning of "a cover or protection for something." This broad construction was asserted to prevent the patent owner from improperly importing limitations from specific embodiments in the specification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’662 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.