June 14, 2023
Authored and Edited by A. Sasha Hoyt; Melanie M. Magdun; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Stacy Lewis†
In parallel inter partes review proceedings, petitioner Scientific Design Company, Inc. (“Scientific Design”) challenged the patentability of all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,357,825 (“the ’825 patent”) and 8,357,813 (“the ’813 patent”) owned by Shell USA, Inc. (“Shell”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) determined that Scientific Design established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of both patents were obvious.[1] Notably, both patents were found obvious over the same combinations of references and via the same rationale; as well, the parties made the same arguments in both proceedings. For simplicity, this blog post will cite solely to IPR2022-00158 when analyzing points made in both proceedings.
The ’825 and ’813 patents are directed to processes for epoxidation of olefins and disclose an improved catalyst to accomplish the process. Additionally, the ’813 patent pertains to preparation of a 1,2-diol, a 1,2-diol ether, or an alkanolamine using an olefin oxide prepared using the epoxidation process.
Representative claims are set forth below with the shared language underlined.
Claim 1 of the ’813 patent: A process for the epoxidation of an olefin, which process comprises reacting a feed comprising an olefin and oxygen in the presence of a catalyst comprising a carrier and silver deposited on the carrier, which carrier comprises at least 85 weight percent α-alumina and has a surface area of at least 1.3 m2/g, a median pore diameter of more than 0.8 μm, and a pore size distribution wherein at least 80% of the total pore volume is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 μm and at least 80% of the pore volume contained in the pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 μm is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.3 to 10 μm.
Claim 1 of the ’825 patent: A process for preparing a 1,2-diol, a 1,2-diol ether or an alkanolamine comprising converting an olefin oxide into the 1,2-diol, the 1,2-diol ether or the alkanolamine wherein the olefin oxide has been obtained by a process for the epoxidation of an olefin comprising reacting a feed comprising an olefin and oxygen in the presence of a catalyst comprising a carrier and silver deposited on the carrier, which carrier comprises at least 85 weight percent α-alumina and has a surface area of at least 1.3 m2/g, a median pore diameter of more than 0.8 μm, and a pore size distribution wherein at least 80% of the total pore volume is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 μm and at least 80% of the pore volume contained in the pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 μm is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.3 to 10 μm.
In both proceedings, the Board determined that “no claim terms require[d] express construction.” IPR2022-00158, Paper 37 at *8.
Scientific Design alleged that claims 1–14 and 17–28 of the ’813 and ’825 patents were obvious over Lockemeyer in view of Liu. In line with the Board’s opinions, this post focuses on arguments made regarding claim 1 of each patent.
Scientific Design alleged that all limitations of claim 1 of the ’813 and ’825 patents were expressly disclosed by Lockemeyer, except for the limitation requiring that the catalyst carrier have “at least 80% of the pore volume contained in the pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 µm is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.3 to 10 µm.” Id. at *14.
Scientific Design and Shell primarily disputed (1) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would be motivated to use the carriers disclosed in Liu to optimize the particle size distribution disclosed in Lockemeyer, and (2) whether doing so would be routine activity.
Scientific Design asserted that, although “Lockemeyer does not disclose a breakdown in the range of pores with diameters of 0.3–10 µm,” it “discloses a pore size distribution in the range of 0.2–10 µm,” and a POSA “would have been motivated to modify the pore size distribution of carriers to optimize performance, as a matter of routine.” Id. Scientific Design likewise asserted that a POSA would have been motivated to optimize the pore size distribution of Carriers S, T, and/or V of Liu, which all had a pore size distribution within the ranges taught by Lockemeyer. Id. Moreover, because Liu teaches a catalyst’s carrier impacts its performance and Lockemeyer teaches that “pore size distribution with pore size within a defined range plays ‘a significant role,’” Scientific Design asserted that a POSA would have been motivated to use Liu to optimize the pore size distribution within the ranges disclosed by Lockemeyer. Id. at *14–15.
In response, Shell argued that Scientific Design failed to adequately establish a “non-hindsight reason” why a POSA would be motivated to use Liu to optimize the pore size distribution of Lockemeyer. Id. at *18. Shell pointed out that, as compared to Lockemeyer’s carriers, certain of Liu’s carriers had a higher percentage of pores greater than 10 µm; included different amounts of silver and different promoters; and were tested using different reaction processes. Id. at *18–19. Shell also argued that Scientific Design failed to establish that routine optimization would have led a POSA to the claimed pore size distribution because “there was nothing ‘routine’ about ‘abandoning use of a single-range [pore size distribution] in favor of two nested ranges.” Id. at *19. Lastly, Shell argued that overlapping range caselaw should not apply because Lockemeyer did not expressly disclose the 0.3–10 µm nested range, and that because the claims recite “interdependent variables” a different line of caselaw controls in determining obviousness. Id. at *20.
The Board agreed with Scientific Design, finding that Lockemeyer “already discloses a [pore size distribution] ‘such that the pores with diameters from 0.2–10 µm represent more than 75%, in particular more than 80% of total pore volume” and that a POSA would be motivated to optimize the pore size distribution to disclose the nested range of claim 1 in view of the teachings in Liu. Id. at *22. A POSA would find this motivation through Lockemeyer’s teaching that pore size distribution “‘play[s] a significant role’ in preparing carriers for catalysts with excellent properties” and Liu’s examples disclosing carriers S, T, and V which were described as enhancing the selectivity, activity, and stability of catalysts. Id. at *22. The Board also found credible Scientific Design’s expert’s testimony regarding a POSA’s expectation of success in completing this optimization. The Board found Shell’s purported distinctions between the carrier systems of Lockemeyer/Liu and the ’825 and ’813 patents unpersuasive.
Moreover, the Board agreed with Scientific Design that a POSA “would have been motivated to modify the pore size distribution of [Lockemeyer’s] carriers to optimize performance, as a matter of routine” and thus arrive at the claimed carriers in light of Lockemeyer’s express invitation for a POSA to do so. Id. at *25 (emphasis in original).
Further, the Board disagreed with Shell’s assertions that its claims recited “interdependent variables” and merited consideration under ModernaTX v. Arbutus Biophama Corp., 18 F.4th 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2021) because “that case did not involve an overlapping range between the claimed composition and prior art, and the evidence there showed that the claimed variables interacted in an unpredictable way.” Id. at *26. By contrast, Shell provided no persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the claimed variables interact in an unpredictable way. Id. Indeed, concerns about unpredictability were mitigated in the Board’s view because (1) “the asserted references are directed to essentially the same chemical reaction using essentially the same chemical reagents” and (2) Lockemeyer disclosed all limitations of the asserted claims except the nested pore size distribution within claim 1 along with an invitation to further refine its disclosed carriers. Id. at *26–27. Lastly, the Bord found Shell’s assertions that Scientific Design failed to demonstrate obviousness of the claims “as a whole” to be unconvincing and conclusory in view of the Scientific Design’s evidence regarding motivation to combine. Id. at *28
The Board found claims 15 and 16 of the ’813 and ’825 patents obvious over of Lockemeyer in view of Liu, Lockemeyer-II, and Kowaleski.
Regarding claim 15, Scientific Design argued that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lockemeyer and Liu—which disclose that bond materials may comprise alkali metal silicates—with those of Lockemeyer-II and Kowaleski because “all [four] references disclose high purity alpha-alumina carriers for silver-containing catalysts for making [ethylene oxide].” Id. at *30. Thus, a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in using calcium or magnesium silicate as a bond material in Lockemeyer’s carriers. Id.
Regarding claim 16, which required the bond material to further comprise “one or more additional component selected from the group consisting of a hydrated alumina, a zirconium component and a titanium component,” Scientific Design argued that Lockemeyer and Liu disclosed a carrier comprising hydrated alumina, Lockemeyer-II disclosed titanium or hydrated alumina, and Kowaleski taught zirconium or titanium. Id. at *30.
Shell did not respond specifically to Scientific Design’s arguments for claims 15 and 16, and instead argued that the alleged deficiencies in Scientific Design’s arguments regarding Lockemeyer and Liu carried over.
The Board sided with Petitioner, finding that Scientific Design established by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the four references in the manner claimed and had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. Id. at *31–32.
Because the Board found every challenged claim of both patents obvious over Lockenmeyer in view of Liu, and Lockenmeyer in view of Liu, Kowaleski, and Lockenmeyer‑II, it did not address the merits of Scientific Design’s other unpatentability grounds. IPR2022-00158 at *32; IPR2022-00159 at *33–34.
[1] Scientific Design Company, Inc. v. Shell USA, Inc., IPR2022-00158, Paper 37 (Mar. 28, 2023); Scientific Design Company, Inc. v. Shell USA, Inc., IPR2022-00159, Paper 37 (Mar. 28, 2023).
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
June 13, 2024
Webinar
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Conference
2024 Hispanic National Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Institute
June 7-8, 2024
Washington
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.