PTAB

IPR2019-00024

Magellan Midstream Partners LP v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals LP

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Versatile Systems for Continuous In-Line Blending of Butane and Petroleum
  • Brief Description: The ’948 patent describes a system for blending butane with gasoline in a pipeline to control the gasoline’s volatility. The system uses a vapor pressure analyzer to measure the volatility of the blend and a processor that adjusts the amount of butane injected based on this measurement and preprogrammed volatility limits.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hass and Williams - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Hass in view of Williams.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hass (Patent 3,530,867) and Williams (Patent 5,271,526).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hass disclosed a feedback control system for blending a volatile stock, such as butane, into a gasoline stream. The Hass system used a vapor-liquid ratio analyzer to measure the blend’s properties and a controller to adjust the flow of the volatile stock to achieve a target ratio. Petitioner contended this system taught the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 7, including the in-pipe blending, the use of a vapor pressure analyzer, and a processor to control the blend. Hass also taught using seasonal and geographical data (e.g., ambient temperatures) to set volatility targets.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Hass with Williams to implement the valve control functions using a programmable logic controller (PLC). Williams disclosed using PLCs to control the flow of additives in gasoline blending for improved efficiency, precision, and reliability. Since PLCs were well-known industrial components by 2001, Petitioner argued it would have been an obvious and routine design choice to use a PLC as disclosed by Williams to implement the control functions of the processor described in Hass.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because implementing known PLC technology (Williams) to automate a known blending process (Hass) involved applying predictable and established engineering principles.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Bajek and Williams - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Bajek and Williams.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bajek (Patent 3,999,959) and Williams (Patent 5,271,526).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Bajek described a refinery-based system for blending butane into gasoline streams to control volatility and octane levels. The system featured a feedback loop with a volatility monitor that sent a signal to a computer, which in turn controlled a valve to adjust the butane flow rate. Petitioner argued that this system met all limitations of the independent claims, including the processor (Bajek’s computer) receiving data from an analyzer (Bajek’s volatility monitor) to control butane injection. Bajek also taught setting volatility targets based on the locale where the gasoline would be marketed, satisfying the "seasonal and/or regional data" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As in Ground 1, the motivation to combine Bajek with Williams was to implement the valve control functions using a modern PLC. Petitioner argued that replacing the flow recorder controller in Bajek’s system with the more reliable and flexible PLC taught by Williams would have been an obvious modification to a POSITA seeking to improve a known process with a known technology.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in integrating a standard PLC into Bajek’s gasoline blending system, as it represented a straightforward application of conventional automation technology.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Stanton (Patent 3,484,590) in view of Williams, and Chin (Patent 4,543,819) in view of Williams. Further grounds combined Bajek, Stanton, and Chin with Williams in further view of Hass to explicitly supply the teaching of a digital computer, if the Board were to construe "processor" as requiring one.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Gasoline": Petitioner proposed that "gasoline" should be construed broadly as "a type of petroleum-based liquid," including liquid streams both within a refinery and downstream of it. This construction was critical for applying prior art like Bajek, which described a blending process occurring within a refinery, a scope Petitioner argued was covered by the ’948 patent claims but had been disclaimed during prosecution of the parent ’302 patent to overcome Bajek.
  • "Processor": Petitioner argued that a "processor" should be construed as "an automated device that receives data and manipulates the data according to a set of instructions to generate an output," which could be an analog device (e.g., a cascade controller) or a digital computer. This broad, functional construction was necessary to allow older prior art references that used analog controllers, such as Hass and Stanton, to meet the claim limitation.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Prosecution History and Recapture: A central contention was that the ’948 patent impermissibly broadened its claims to recapture subject matter surrendered during the prosecution of its parent, the ’302 patent. Petitioner argued that the ’302 patent claims were only allowed over Bajek after being amended to limit the blending location to a "tank farm" or "rack" (i.e., post-refinery). The ’948 patent, however, removed this location-specific limitation, resulting in claims that now read on the very same refinery-based blending systems (like Bajek's) that were previously disclaimed.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’948 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.