PTAB

IPR2019-01544

United Laboratories Intl LLC v. Refined Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Process for Removing Hydrocarbons and Noxious Gasses from Reactors and Media-Packed Equipment
  • Brief Description: The ’488 patent discloses methods for cleaning contaminants from industrial process systems, such as refinery equipment. The process involves using a water-free carrier gas to volatize a non-aqueous solvent, delivering this gaseous mixture into the system, and using the solvent to dissolve and remove contaminants like hydrocarbons.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Foutsitzis and Allen - Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are obvious over Foutsitzis in view of Allen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Foutsitzis (Patent 5,035,792) and Allen (Patent 4,008,764).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Foutsitzis taught the foundational method for purging contaminants from a refinery conversion system (the claimed "process system") using a hydrocarbon solvent (a "non-aqueous solvent") and an inert carrier gas. However, Foutsitzis introduced its solvent as a liquid. Allen was argued to supply the missing limitation of volatizing the solvent, as it explicitly disclosed a method for recovering viscous petroleum by creating a gaseous mixture of a carrier gas (e.g., nitrogen) and a vaporized hydrocarbon solvent, and then injecting this mixture into a formation. The combination of Foutsitzis's system cleaning context and Allen's solvent delivery method allegedly rendered the process of independent claim 1 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) seeking to improve the contaminant purging process of Foutsitzis would have looked to analogous methods in the petroleum industry, such as Allen. Both references addressed the removal of hydrocarbons from porous media using a solvent and carrier gas. Therefore, a POSA would combine Allen’s technique of volatizing a solvent into a carrier gas with Foutsitzis’s process to achieve a more efficient and effective distribution of the solvent throughout the system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known technique (vaporized solvent delivery from Allen) to a known system (refinery cleaning from Foutsitzis) to achieve a predictable result—more effective cleaning.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Foutsitzis, Allen, and Jansen - Claims 7-8 and 14-20 are obvious over Foutsitzis in view of Allen, and further in view of Jansen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Foutsitzis (Patent 5,035,792), Allen (Patent 4,008,764), and Jansen (Patent 6,936,112).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Foutsitzis and Allen to address limitations in various dependent claims by introducing Jansen. Petitioner argued Jansen, which taught cleaning heat transfer equipment in petrochemical industries, provided the specific details missing from the primary combination. For claims 7 and 8 (reciting specific organic contaminants like crude oil, its derivatives, and noxious gases like H₂S and benzene), Jansen disclosed a vaporous cleaning agent that solubilizes light end hydrocarbons including benzene and H₂S from surfaces coated with "petroleum residues." For claims 14-17 (reciting specific solvent types like terpenes, aromatic solvents, and naphtha), Jansen was cited for its detailed discussion of using terpenes and other organic compounds as cleaning agents. For claims 18-20 (reciting controlled solvent-to-gas ratios), Jansen was cited for disclosing an administrator to control solvent and gas supply and for discussing effective cleaner concentrations and ratios.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSA, having arrived at the general process of Ground 1, would have been motivated to consult Jansen to optimize the method. Jansen addressed the same fundamental problem: cleaning contaminants from petroleum industry equipment using a vaporized solvent. A POSA would look to Jansen for specific, known-effective solvents (like terpenes), to address specific, common contaminants (like petroleum residues), and to implement known process controls for efficiency and predictability.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating Jansen's specific solvents and process controls into the Foutsitzis/Allen framework would have been a straightforward application of known principles to achieve the predictable benefits of improved cleaning performance and process control.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Substantial": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "at least 50%," based on an explicit definition provided in the ’488 patent’s specification. This construction was central to determining the scope of infringement and the applicability of prior art that removes contaminants dissolved in a cleaning fluid.
  • "Process System": Proposed as "equipment used in a series of continuous or regularly occurring actions taking place in a predetermined or planned manner, such as in oil refining or chemical manufacturing..." This construction anchored the patent in the specific field of industrial processing, making prior art from that field, like Foutsitzis and Jansen, highly relevant.
  • "Non-Aqueous Solvent": Construed as "a substance, or combination of substances, which contains no water, capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other substances." This construction clarified that simple hydrocarbon solvents, as disclosed in the prior art, met the claim limitation.
  • "Contaminant": Defined broadly as "a foreign or unwanted material." This broad interpretation supported the petitioner's position that materials like petroleum residues and hydrocarbons discussed in the prior art were encompassed by the claim language.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’488 patent as unpatentable.