PTAB

IPR2024-00887

URT UMWElt und RecyclingTechnik GmbH v. Duesenfeld GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Battery Processing Installation for the Treatment of Used Batteries
  • Brief Description: The ’097 patent discloses a method and system for recycling used lithium-ion batteries. The process involves comminuting (shredding) the batteries, inactivating the resulting material by subjecting it to a drying process to remove electrolytes, and then filling the inert material into a transport container.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over LithoRec, DIN 28400, and Perry - Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are obvious over LithoRec in view of DIN 28400 and Perry.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LithoRec (a 2012 publication on lithium-ion battery recycling), DIN 28400 (a 1990 German standard for vacuum technology), and Perry (a 1997 chemical engineering handbook).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that LithoRec discloses all steps of independent claim 1 except for the specific pressure range for drying. LithoRec teaches a battery recycling process involving "pre-shredding" (comminuting), followed by drying the active mass to evaporate flammable electrolytes for safety (inactivating), and then packaging the resulting powder in a drum filler (filling a transport container). To supply the claimed pressure limitation of "a maximum pressure of 300 hPa," Petitioner asserted that LithoRec explicitly favors "drying under vacuum" to keep temperatures low and prevent explosions. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would turn to standard references like DIN 28400 and Perry to implement this vacuum. DIN 28400, an international standard, defines a vacuum as pressure between 0 and 300 hPa (millibars), the exact range claimed. Perry further provides concrete examples of shelf vacuum dryers operating well within this range (e.g., 1.33 to 33.33 hPa).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, guided by LithoRec's instruction to use vacuum drying for safety, would be motivated to consult standard industry references like DIN 28400 and Perry to determine conventional operating parameters. The motivation was not to solve a new problem but to implement a known safety measure using established, well-documented pressure ranges to prevent combustion of flammable solvents.
    • Expectation of Success: There would be a high expectation of success, as the combination merely applied a standard, internationally recognized pressure range (from DIN 28400 and Perry) to a known vacuum drying process (from LithoRec) for its intended and predictable purpose.

Ground 2: Obviousness over LithoRec, DIN 28400, Perry, and Hanisch - Claim 9 is obvious over LithoRec in view of DIN 28400, Perry, and further in view of Hanisch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LithoRec, DIN 28400, Perry, and Hanisch (WO 2013/023640).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination in Ground 1 to address the additional limitation of claim 9, which requires "drying occurs at a temperature of less than 80° C." While LithoRec teaches keeping drying temperatures low, it does not specify a range. Petitioner asserted that Hanisch remedies this by explicitly disclosing a process for drying battery fragments to reclaim electrolytes, stating it is "advantageous for the drying temperature to be below 100 °C, in particular below 80 °C."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the low-temperature vacuum drying process of LithoRec would be motivated to find an optimal temperature that safely and efficiently removes electrolytes without causing side reactions. Hanisch, which addresses the same technical challenge, provides a specific and advantageous temperature range, motivating a POSITA to adopt its teaching of drying below 80°C to achieve the known benefits of solvent recovery and safety.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that although Hanisch was cited during prosecution, its teaching of a drying temperature below 80°C was overlooked. The Examiner and Applicant focused only on Hanisch's high-temperature decomposition step, not its preceding low-temperature drying step, presenting this combination in a new light.

Ground 3: Anticipation by LithoRec - Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are anticipated by LithoRec.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LithoRec.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the battery processing installation disclosed in LithoRec’s pilot plant diagrams and descriptions anticipates the system claims. LithoRec allegedly discloses each element: a "comminution unit" (pre-shredder), an "inactivation device" comprising a "drying device" (dryer), a "filling device" (drum filler with palletizing device), and a "vacuum installation" (inherently disclosed by the teaching of a vacuum dryer). Petitioner further argued that LithoRec discloses the claimed separation devices, including a magnetic separator and cross-flow separator for detaching hard metal and light fractions, and a sieve for separating the active material fraction from the carrier foil fraction (copper and aluminum). The system components in LithoRec are arranged to perform the same functions as claimed, such as drying after comminuting.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claim 17 over LithoRec in view of Hanisch, arguing a POSITA would have been motivated to use the "air jet sieving device" taught by Hanisch to perform the separation of active material from foil taught by LithoRec.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several key terms were defined by the patentee in the specification or during prosecution and that these definitions should govern.
  • Inactivation device: During prosecution, the Applicant defined this as a "drying device."
  • Drying: The specification defines this as "the removal of at least one solvent in the conducting salt," such as dimethyl carbonate.
  • Transport Container: The specification defines this as "transport packaging," which is preferably vacuum-sealed.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-13, and 15-19 of the ’097 patent as unpatentable.