PTAB

IPR2019-00202

BASF Corp v. Ingevity South Carolina LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Evaporative Emission Control Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’844 patent discloses automotive evaporative emissions control systems designed to reduce "bleed emissions" of fuel vapors. The invention uses a multi-stage adsorbent system, comprising an initial high-capacity adsorbent followed by a subsequent, lower-capacity adsorbent to capture vapors that migrate through the primary canister when a vehicle is not running.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Meiller, Park, and AAPA - Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25, 27-29, 31-33, 36-37, 39-41, 43-45, 48-49, 51-53 are obvious over Meiller in view of Park and Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Meiller (Patent 6,896,852), Park (Patent 5,914,294), and AAPA (from the ’844 patent).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the core claimed invention—a two-stage adsorbent system to capture bleed emissions—was disclosed by the prior art. Meiller taught a conventional evaporative canister (the initial volume) followed by a honeycomb-like "scrubber" (the subsequent volume) to solve the exact same problem of bleed emissions. The Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in the ’844 patent itself conceded that conventional carbons used in the initial canister (e.g., BAX-1100, BAX-1500) had a high "incremental adsorption capacity" (IAC) greater than 35 g/L. Park taught the specific method for creating an activated carbon honeycomb monolith suitable for use as Meiller's scrubber. Petitioner contended that a honeycomb made according to Park’s teachings inherently possessed a low IAC (less than 35 g/L) due to volumetric dilution from its constituent materials (e.g., ceramics) and its high voidage (open cell structure).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Meiller identified the problem (bleed emissions) and the structural solution (a two-stage system with a honeycomb scrubber) but did not specify how to make the honeycomb. Park provided the well-known, missing instructions for creating such a honeycomb monolith specifically for automotive emission applications. A POSITA would use the high-IAC carbons admitted as prior art in the ’844 patent for Meiller's initial, conventional canister to maximize its primary adsorption capacity.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because combining the references involved using known components for their intended purposes to achieve a predictable result. Park’s honeycomb was known to be useful for adsorbing fuel vapors while having low back pressure, making it an ideal choice for Meiller’s scrubber.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Abe, Park, and AAPA - Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25, 27-29, 31-33, 36-37, 39-41, 43-45, 48-49, 51-53 are obvious over Abe in view of Park and AAPA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abe (Japanese Application Publication No. 10-37812), Park (Patent 5,914,294), and AAPA (from the ’844 patent).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this ground as an alternative to Ground 1, with Abe serving as the primary reference instead of Meiller. Abe disclosed the same two-stage solution to the same problem: adding a small-volume, honeycomb auxiliary canister in series after a conventional, granular carbon main canister to reduce vapor leakage when a car is stopped for a long period. The mapping of AAPA to the initial high-IAC volume and Park to the subsequent low-IAC honeycomb volume was identical to the arguments presented in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to Ground 1. A POSITA reading Abe, which disclosed a honeycomb canister without manufacturing details, would be motivated to look to a reference like Park, which taught exactly how to create such a honeycomb for the same purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was similarly based on combining known elements for their established functions to achieve the predictable outcome of reducing bleed emissions.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Meiller, Park, and Tennison - Claims 3-5, 7, and 19 are obvious over Meiller and Park in view of Tennison and AAPA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Meiller (Patent 6,896,852), Park (Patent 5,914,294), Tennison (WO 92/01585), and AAPA.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Meiller and Park to address limitations in specific dependent claims. Tennison was introduced to teach locating multiple adsorbent volumes within a single canister housing. For claims 4, 5, and 19, which required the initial and subsequent volumes to be in a single canister, Tennison disclosed this arrangement. For claim 3, which required "multiple subsequent adsorbent volumes," Petitioner argued a POSITA would add the Meiller-Park honeycomb scrubber to the vent-side of Tennison’s own two-stage canister, thereby creating a system with an initial volume and two subsequent volumes.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine Tennison with the Meiller-Park system for reasons of design choice and packaging efficiency. Since Tennison taught that different adsorbent beds could be housed in one canister, it would have been obvious to modify Meiller’s separate canister system into an integrated single-canister unit as taught by Tennison.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the adsorbent volumes into a single canister, as this was a known design variation in the art for achieving the same function.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25, 27-29, 31-33, 36-37, 39-41, 43-45, 48-49, and 51-53 of Patent RE38,844 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.