PTAB

IPR2019-00618

VRG Controls, LLC v. Dresser, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Fluid Control Valve
  • Brief Description: The ’843 patent is directed to a fluid control valve, for use with fluids like natural gas, that uses a throttling ball to regulate flow. The patent’s purported improvements include a "ball plate" with multiple orifices disposed within the throttling ball to create staged pressure drops and a downstream "shoe member" with a hemispherical surface to promote laminar flow, with both features intended to reduce noise and cavitation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 17-18, and 23-25 are anticipated by Davenport.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Davenport (Patent 5,070,909).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Davenport, which teaches a rotary control valve, discloses every element of the challenged independent claims (1, 17, and 24). Specifically, Davenport's valve body, rotatable throttling ball, and fluid conduit were asserted to map directly to the claim limitations. Petitioner contended that Davenport's internal "trim 35," which includes parallel and transverse ducts (orifices), constitutes the claimed "ball plate." Furthermore, Petitioner argued that Davenport's upstream and downstream "seat/trim assemblies 13a and 13b," which have a partial hemisphere interior surface that tracks the ball, meet all limitations of the claimed "shoe member."
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that while Davenport was cited during prosecution, the patent owner amended the claims to add the "ball plate" limitation to overcome a rejection. Petitioner argued this amendment was improper because Davenport's "trim 35" inherently discloses the "ball plate," thus anticipating the issued claims.

Ground 2: Claims 19-21 are obvious over Davenport in view of Partridge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Davenport (Patent 5,070,909) and Partridge (Application # 2007/0034267).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Davenport for the base valve structure and addressed dependent claim 19, which further requires an internal trim with a "plurality of flow plates aligned substantially parallel to the axis of rotation." While Davenport discloses an internal trim, Petitioner argued it does not explicitly show a plurality of parallel plates. Partridge was introduced to supply this teaching, as it discloses a valve with an internal trim comprising multiple flow plates arranged perpendicular to the axis of rotation to create staged pressure drops.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Partridge's multi-plate trim with Davenport's valve to solve the well-known problems of cavitation and noise. The motivation was to use the known technique of dispersing the pressure drop across multiple plates, a method taught by both references for the same purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a clear expectation of success in the combination, as implementing known noise and cavitation reduction components like plates and diffusers into a standard valve configuration was a conventional and predictable design approach.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 17-21, 23, and 25 are obvious over EP '269 in view of Leinen, Durco, Carlson, and/or Neles Q-Ball.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: EP '269 (European Patent Application No. EP 0 889 269 A1), Leinen (Patent 5,437,305), Durco (DurcoTrim Publication), Carlson (Patent 6,039,304), and Neles Q-Ball (Neles Q-Ball Publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner used EP '269 as the primary reference, arguing it teaches a base valve with a rotatable shut-off ball (throttling ball) and a downstream throttling member that functions as the claimed "shoe member." Petitioner contended that EP '269 does not expressly teach the claimed "ball plate" with orifices. To supply this element, Petitioner cited Leinen and Durco, which both disclose throttling balls with a transverse ball plate having multiple orifices to optimize pressure drop. To further support the obviousness of the "shoe member," Petitioner cited Carlson, which teaches a concave disk (shoe member) detachably secured within the valve body. Neles Q-Ball was cited to show the common use of internal diffuser plates to reduce noise.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because all references address the same problem in the same field: reducing noise and cavitation in fluid control valves. It would have been a matter of applying known solutions (e.g., Leinen's ball plate, Carlson's shoe member) to a base valve like EP '269 to achieve the predictable result of improved flow characteristics.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as it involved assembling known components, each performing its expected function, to create a valve with improved performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the claim term "shoe member...detachably secured to the body" is not enabled and renders the claims indefinite under pre-AIA §112, first paragraph. Petitioner asserted that the entirety of the ’843 patent's specification and figures only describe and illustrate a shoe member that is "detachably secured" to the outlet closure, not directly to the valve body. As the claims explicitly require attachment to the body, Petitioner contended that the specification fails to provide an adequate written description to support the claimed invention as recited.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 17-21, and 23-25 of Patent 8,141,843 as unpatentable.