Evapco Dry Cooling Inc v. SPG Dry Cooling USA LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00688
• Patent #: 10,527,354
• Filed: March 24, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: MODULAR AIR COOLED CONDENSER APPARATUS AND METHOD
• Brief Description: The ’354 patent discloses a mechanical draft air-cooled condenser that utilizes modular components. The claimed invention arranges multiple condenser bundles and headers in an A-frame or V-configuration, supported by a frame and cooled by a single large fan housed in a shroud.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious over EPRI in view of Kroger

• Prior Art Relied Upon: EPRI (Air Cooled Condenser Design, Specification, and Operation Guidelines, Electric Power Research Institute) and Kroger (Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers and Cooling Towers (2004)).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that EPRI discloses all the structural elements of the claimed air-cooled condenser (ACC) except for the use of a single fan to create a draft over four condenser bundles. EPRI teaches the fundamental A-frame (or delta) configuration for ACCs, including modules with multiple finned-tube bundles arranged in parallel, steam distribution manifolds at the top, and condensate headers at the bottom. Petitioner asserted that EPRI’s schematics show the arrangement of multiple condenser bundles (first, second, third, fourth), corresponding headers, and support frames as recited in independent claims 1 and 6.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that EPRI provides general descriptions of ACC systems but leaves implementation details, such as the number and size of fans, to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). A POSITA seeking to implement EPRI’s design would have been motivated to consult a reference like Kroger, which discloses using a single large axial-flow fan with a shroud to serve multiple heat exchanger bundles. The motivation for this combination was to reduce noise, vibration, system complexity (fewer motors, less wiring), and overall cost—all known benefits of using one large fan instead of several smaller ones.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable result of applying Kroger’s known fan configuration to EPRI’s standard ACC design. Petitioner argued this was a simple design choice that merely improved upon EPRI’s system without changing the fundamental operation of either reference.

Ground 2: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Schulenberg in view of Kroger

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Schulenberg (Patent 3,073,575) and Kroger.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Schulenberg, like EPRI, discloses a modular, air-cooled surface condenser with the key structural elements of the challenged claims. Schulenberg teaches condenser elements inclined toward each other in a roof-shape or A-frame configuration, forming multiple modules. It explicitly discloses the use of first, second, third, and fourth condenser bundles and parallel condensate headers. The primary difference is that Schulenberg shows multiple smaller propeller blowers for each module.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Schulenberg with Kroger was identical to the motivation in Ground 1. A POSITA would have recognized the advantages taught by Kroger of using a single large fan and would have found it obvious to replace Schulenberg’s multiple blowers with a single, more efficient fan from Kroger to achieve benefits in cost, complexity, and noise reduction.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that substituting the fan system was a predictable modification. The respective teachings would work together as they did apart, with Kroger’s fan system simply improving Schulenberg’s condenser design.

Ground 3: Claims 3 and 8 are obvious over EPRI and Kroger in view of Schabosky and O’Kane

• Prior Art Relied Upon: EPRI, Kroger, Schabosky (Application # 2009/0178279), and O’Kane (CA Patent No. 2,444,475).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of EPRI and Kroger to specifically address the limitations in claims 3 and 8 requiring the condenser tubes to have a length of "approximately two meters." Petitioner argued that while the primary references teach the overall structure, Schabosky and O'Kane provide the motivation for this specific dimension.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would be motivated by ease of transport and on-site assembly. O’Kane discloses the standard dimensions of a 40-foot shipping container, which has a height and width of approximately 8 feet (about 2.4 meters). Schabosky teaches pre-assembling condenser bundles to simplify and expedite on-site construction. To facilitate easy transport of large, pre-assembled condenser bundles as taught by Schabosky, a POSITA would have been motivated to size the bundles to fit within standard shipping containers. This design constraint would directly lead to a tube length of approximately two meters to fit within the container’s height/width.
  • Expectation of Success: Sizing components for efficient shipping was argued to be a routine design choice for a POSITA in this field.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 based on the combination of Schulenberg, Kroger, Schabosky, and O’Kane, relying on the same design modification theories for tube length described in Ground 3.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. The petition was filed shortly after a complaint was served in a co-pending district court case. Petitioner contended that the litigation was in its infancy, with no trial date set and minimal investment by the parties or the court (Factors 2 and 3 favor institution). Because the Board’s Final Written Decision would likely issue well before any potential trial, the IPR would promote judicial efficiency (Factor 4). Finally, Petitioner asserted that the merits of the petition were particularly strong, as it relied on prior art not considered during prosecution, and that this strength should outweigh any concerns of parallel proceedings (Factor 6).

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’354 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.