PTAB

IPR2019-00025

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 ’548 patent relates to systems and methods for blending butane with a gasoline stream to control the volatility of the final blended product. The system uses a feedback loop where the volatility of the blended stream is measured, compared to a target value, and used to adjust the rate of butane injection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-16 by Hass

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hass (Patent 3,530,867).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hass discloses every element of the challenged claims. Hass describes a continuous gasoline blending system using a feedback loop to inject a "volatile stock" (e.g., butane) into a gasoline stream. Hass's system includes a vapor-liquid ratio analyzer (a volatility measurement device) that measures the blend downstream of the injection point. A vapor-liquid ratio controller (a processor) receives this measurement, compares it to a preset target value, and outputs a signal to a metering and control device that adjusts the flow of the volatile stock. Petitioner asserted this directly maps to the independent claims’ limitations for an injection device, a volatility measurement device, and a processor configured to receive measurements and target values to determine and signal an adjustment.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner noted that Hass was not cited during the prosecution of the ’548 patent or its parent applications.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1-16 by Bajek

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bajek (Patent 3,999,959).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Bajek discloses a control system to regulate butane introduced into gasoline streams to achieve a desired vapor pressure. Bajek’s system shows a feedback loop where a sample of the blended gasoline is sent to a volatility monitor downstream from the butane injection point. The monitor generates a signal representative of the vapor/liquid (V/L) ratio, which is transmitted to a computer (processor). The computer compares the measured value to a target value (an ASTM standard for the locale) and sends output signals to flow recorder controllers, which actuate a control valve to adjust the butane flow rate. Petitioner argued this anticipates all limitations of the independent claims.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that while Bajek was of record during prosecution of a parent patent, the Examiner allowed those claims only after they were amended to be limited to blending "at the tank farm," a limitation not present in the challenged ’548 patent claims.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-16 over Bajek in view of Hass

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bajek (Patent 3,999,959) and Hass (Patent 3,530,867).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent the Board determines the "processor" in Bajek's system does not meet the claim limitations, or that a "processor" must be a digital computer, it would have been obvious to modify Bajek with the teachings of Hass. Hass explicitly discloses that blending accuracy can be improved by using analog or digital computing systems to control the blend composition.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the systems of Bajek and Hass because they address similar problems in gasoline blending. A POSITA would have been motivated to update the computer comparator in Bajek with the more modern digital computer disclosed in Hass to gain commonly understood benefits of such an adaptation, including increased speed, accuracy, reliability, and reduced cost.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that computer control in manufacturing and processing was commonplace by the patent's priority date, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Bajek's control logic on a digital computer as taught by Hass.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation and obviousness challenges. These included anticipation of various claims by Stanton (Patent 3,484,590) and Chin (Patent 4,543,819), which disclose similar feedback-based blending systems. Obviousness grounds were also based on combinations of Stanton and Chin with Hass, primarily arguing that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate features like using multiple gasoline streams, basing target volatility on seasonal/regional data to comply with EPA regulations, or implementing the control systems on a digital computer.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Gasoline" and "Gasoline Stream": Petitioner argued for a broad construction meaning "a type of petroleum-based liquid," including streams both within a refinery and downstream. This construction was asserted to be critical because key prior art references (e.g., Bajek) describe refinery blending. Petitioner contended that the patent owner had narrowed claims in a parent application to overcome this art by limiting them to post-refinery blending, a limitation absent from the challenged claims of the ’548 patent.
  • "Processor": Petitioner proposed that "processor" be construed as "an automated device that receives data and manipulates the data according to a set of instructions to generate an output." This construction was intended to encompass not only digital computers but also older analog devices, such as the cascade controllers and ratio controllers disclosed in prior art like Hass and Stanton.
  • "Vapor Pressure": Petitioner argued this term should be construed according to the patent’s explicit definition, which states it encompasses Reid vapor pressure (RVP), true vapor pressure, and vapor/liquid ratio. This construction allows prior art that measures any of these related properties (such as the V/L ratio in Hass and Bajek) to satisfy the "volatility measurement" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 9,606,548 as unpatentable.