Daicel Corporationv.Celanese International Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2015

10708420 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571.272.7822 Entered: March 30, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

DAICEL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

CELANESE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.

TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Daicel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”)
requesting institution of inter partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
7,223,886 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’886 patent”). Celanese International
Corporation (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7,
“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons given below, we
determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing with respect to claim 1 of the ’886 patent. Accordingly, we do
not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to the challenged
claim.
A. Related Matters
Petitions for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 8,076,507
are pending in IPR2014-01514, IPR2015-00170, IPR2015-00171, and
IPR2015-00173. Pet. 1–2; Paper 10, 2.
B. The ’886 Patent
The ’886 patent is directed to an improved process for the removal of
permanganate reducing compounds (“PRCs”) and alkyl iodides “formed by
the carbonylation of methanol in the presence of a Group VIII metal
carbonylation catalyst.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–12. In particular, “the invention
relates to an improved process for reducing and/or removing precursors of
permanganate reducing compounds and alkyl iodides from intermediate
streams during the formation of acetic acid.” Id. at 1:12–17.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

3
In the disclosed process, carbon monoxide is bubbled through
methanol in the presence of water, methyl acetate, methyl halide, and
rhodium to produce acetic acid. Id. at 1:43–53, 6:42–49. PRC impurities,
such as acetaldehyde, are generated in this process and may react with iodide
catalyst promoters to form alkyl iodides. Id. at 2:36–39. Even in small
amounts, these alkyl iodides are undesirable because they “tend to poison
the catalyst used in the production of vinyl acetate, the product most
commonly produced from acetic acid.” Id. at 2:39–44.
The ’886 patent discloses that, “[b]ecause many impurities originate
with acetaldehyde,” a focus in the art was to remove acetaldehyde from the
production process. Id. at 2:46–49. The ’886 patent further discloses that
many different techniques were known in the art for removing acetaldehyde
from the final product, including treating the product with oxidizers and
using a series of distillation steps. Id. at 2:50–55. These methods of treating
the final acetic acid product were not economically or commercially
feasible, however, because the impurities to be removed “have boiling points
close to that of the acetic acid product.” Id. at 3:7–10. Thus, methods of
removing impurities elsewhere in the process were needed. Id. at 3:11–14.
The ’886 patent discloses that several successful methods for
removing acetaldehyde from various points in the production process were
known in the art, including those disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,625,095
(Ex. 1010, “the ’095 patent”) and 6,339,171 (Ex. 1011, “the ’171 patent”).
Id. at 3:31–67. According to the ’886 patent, the ’095 patent discloses a
successful method of removing acetaldehyde by distilling the light phase
stream, heavy phase stream, or both, but does not “identify which of these
streams possesses the greatest concentration of acetaldehyde.” Id. at 3:31–
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

4
44. The ’171 patent is asserted to disclose removing a majority of
acetaldehyde from the light phase stream using two distillation steps and an
optional water extraction step, but the ’886 patent asserts that further room
for improvement remained. Id. at 3:54–4:8.
Figures 1 and 2 of the ’886 patent are set forth below:

IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

5
Figure 1 illustrates “the prior art process, as disclosed in” the ’171 patent,
and Figure 2 “illustrates a preferred embodiment” of the ’886 patent. Id. at
5:10–15.
In the prior art process of Figure 1, a first vapor phase acetic acid
stream 28, containing methyl iodide, methyl acetate, acetaldehyde and other
carbonyl components, exits splitter column 14. Id. at 8:29–32. This stream
is condensed in vessel 16 to separate a heavy phase, containing the catalytic
components, and light phase 30, containing acetaldehyde, water, and acetic
acid. Id. at 8:32–36. Either phase may then be directed to column 18 for
distillation, but distillation of the light phase is preferred. Id. at 8:37–46.
From column 18, second vapor phase 36, which is enriched in
aldehydes and alkyl iodides, is condensed in vessel 20 to form a second
liquid phase product. Id. at 8:45–50. This second liquid phase product is
then directed to second distillation column 22, where acetaldehyde is
separated from the other components of the liquid. Id. at 8:50–53. Stream
52, exiting from the top of column 22, is directed first to a condenser and
then to overhead receiver 24 and extractor 27. Id. at 10:38–56. In the
extractor, PRCs and alkyl iodides are extracted with water. Id. at 10:56–59.
PRC-rich aqueous extract stream 64 exits the extractor from the top and is
directed to waste treatment. Id. at 10:63–67. Raffinate stream 66,
containing methyl iodide, exits the condenser from the bottom and is
returned to the reaction system. Id.
In Figure 2, an additional extraction step is performed. Specifically,
instead of returning raffinate stream 66 to the reaction system, it is directed
to extractor 25 to remove additional PRCs and alkyl iodides. Id. at 11:1–5.
Aqueous extract stream 70 exits from the top of extractor 25 and is directed
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

6
to waste treatment. Id. at 11:8–14. Raffinate stream 72, exiting from the
bottom of extractor 25, is “recycled to the reaction system and ultimately to
the reactor.” Id.
The ’886 patent discloses that, although the multistage extraction set
forth in Figure 2 removes acetaldehyde, it also may remove a measurable
amount of methyl iodide, “an especially costly component of the reaction
system.” Id. at 11:27–32. The ’886 patent discloses, however, that loss of
methyl iodide in the extraction step can be reduced when dimethyl ether
(“DME”) is present in the extractor, which can be produced in “[t]he
required quantity” by introducing water upstream of the extractor, for
example, in feed 40 or reflux 50. Id. at 11:35–50. The ’886 patent
postulates that this water reacts with methyl acetate and/or methyl iodide to
form methanol, “which is then dehydrated in the presence of an acid catalyst
(such as HI) to form DME.” Id. at 11:51–56.
C. Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An improved method for reduction and/or removal of
permanganate-reducing compounds (PRC’s)[,] C3-8 carboxylic
acids and C2-12 alkyl iodide compounds formed in the
carbonylation of a carbonylatable reactant selected from the
group consisting of methanol, methyl acetate, methyl formate
and dimethyl ether and mixtures thereof to an acetic acid
product, the products of said carbonylation including a volatile
[p]hase that is distilled to yield a purified acetic acid product
and a first overhead comprising methyl iodide, water and at
least one PRC, wherein the improvement comprises the steps
of:

(a) distilling at least a portion of the first overhead to produce a
second overhead stream comprising methyl iodide, dimethyl
ether, and said at least one PRC;
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

7

(b) extracting the second overhead stream with water to form a
first raffinate and a first aqueous extract stream containing said
at least one PRC; and

(c) extracting the first raffinate with water to form a second
raffinate and a second aqueous extract stream containing said at
least one PRC,

wherein the improvement further comprises introducing at least
a portion of the second raffinate directly or indirectly into the
reaction medium.
Ex. 1001, 12:5–27; see also Ex. 1007, claim 1 (indicating typographical
errors in published claims).
D. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies upon the following references, as well as the
Declarations of Jeremy Cooper (Ex. 1003) and Hiroyuki Miura (Ex. 1005):
Reference Document Date Exhibit
Miura
(“the ’095
patent”)
US 5,625,095 Apr. 29, 1997 1010
Singh
(“the ’171
patent”)
US 6,339,171 B1 Jan. 15, 2002 1011
Akinori
Acetic Acid Synthesis
from Methanol, 20 J.
JAPAN PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE 379–462
(1977) (English
translation)
1977 1013
1

1
The original Japanese language document is provided as Exhibit 1012.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

8
E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges the patentabilty of claim 1 of the ’886 patent
based on the following grounds:
Reference(s) Basis Claim Challenged
The ’095 patent § 102 1
The ’171 patent § 103 1
The ’095 patent and Akinori § 103 1
The ’095 patent and the ’171 patent § 103 1

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
Claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-
1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (“Congress implicitly
adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
AIA.”). For purposes of this Decision, we determine no express
construction of the claim language is required.
B. Anticipation by the ’095 Patent
Petitioner contends that claim 1 is anticipated by the ’095 patent. Pet.
20–29. In support of its argument, Petitioner relies upon the Declaration
testimony of Mr. Cooper and Mr. Miura. Id.
1. The ’095 Patent
The ’095 patent is directed to “a process for producing acetic acid by
continuously reacting methanol with carbon monoxide in the presence of
water using a rhodium catalyst and methyl iodide.” Ex. 1010, 1:14–18. One
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

9
object of the ’095 patent is “to provide a process for producing high purity
acetic acid, wherein carbonyl compounds or organic iodides . . . are
reduced.” Id. at 2:45–49.
The process and equipment for accomplishing the method of the ’095
patent are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, set forth below:

Figure 1 is a process flow diagram showing a reaction and recovery system
“used for rhodium-catalyzed carbonylation of methanol to acetic acid.” Id.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

10
at 5:3–5. Figure 2 shows “one example of a distillation system for
separating methyl iodide from acetaldehyde.” Id. at 2:34–35.
Referring to Figure 1, liquid products are withdrawn from the reactor
10 via line 11 and introduced into flasher 12. Id. at 5:30–34. A catalyst
liquid—containing primarily acetic acid, rhodium catalyst, and iodide
salts—is withdrawn from the flasher as bottom stream 13 and returned to
reactor 10. Id. at 5:34–39. Overhead 15, which “contains mainly product
acetic acid together with methyl iodide, methyl acetate, and water,” is
directed to splitter column 14. Id. at 5:39–41. Splitter column 14 separates
acetic acid from methyl iodide, methyl acetate, and water, and these
products are then transferred as overhead 20 and separated into two liquid
phases: lower phase 30 containing primarily methyl iodide and small
amounts of methyl acetate and acetic acid, and upper phase 32 containing
“mainly water, acetic acid, and a small amount of methyl acetate.” Id. at
5:50–55.
The lower phase, the upper phase, or both, are then introduced into 80
plate distillation column 40. Id. at 8:52–58. From the bottom of distillation
column 40 a methyl iodide stream is recirculated into the reactor via line 46,
whereas distillate 44, obtained from the top of the distillation column, is
extracted with water in one or two stages. Id. at 8:57–58, 12:56–61, 15:30–
40 (noting that extraction using a theoretical stage of one stage resulted in
acetaldehyde extractability of 68% and extraction using a theoretical stage of
two stages resulted in an acetaldehyde extractability of 95%). After
extraction, the methyl iodide-rich raffinate is directed into the 80 plate
distillation column, “to thereby recirculate it into the reactor as a bottom
withdrawn liquid from the above 80 plates distillation column.” Id. at 13:3–
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

11
8. The aqueous phase may then be supplied to subsequent distillation
column 60, wherein acetaldehyde is withdrawn as a distillate and water is
withdrawn as a bottom product and recirculated to the extractor as a solvent.
Id. at 13:9–20.
2. Analysis
Petitioner asserts that the ’095 patent expressly discloses each and
every element of claim 1, except the presence of DME in the second
overhead. Pet. 24–25. Petitioner asserts, however, that “DME is inherently
produced in the process and therefore it must be present in the overhead as
described in the examples of the ’095 patent.” Id. at 25.
To show that the ’095 patent discloses a process that inherently results
in the presence of DME, Petitioner relies upon an experiment conducted by
Mr. Miura, one of the inventors identified on the face of the ’095 patent. Id.;
Ex. 1005. Petitioner asserts that this experiment confirms that when the
’095 patent process is operated according to the “Example” and “Example
1” of the ’095 patent, DME is present in the first and second overheads. Pet.
25–26; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 10, 13.
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s experimental evidence is
insufficient to establish that DME is inherently present in the second
overhead stream of the ’095 patent, because Mr. Miura’s experiment does
not “come remotely close to replicating the conditions and compositions” of
the examples in the ’095 patent.
2
Prelim. Resp. 28–29. Patent Owner

2
Compare Ex. 1005 ¶ 11 (describing the reaction liquid of the Miura
experiment as containing “8.2 wt% methyl iodide, 2.7 wt% water, 1.6 wt%
methyl acetate, 73.5 wt% acetic acid, 12.3 wt% lithium iodide, and 910 ppm
rhodium”) with Ex. 1010, 12:9–12 (describing the Example reaction liquid

IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

12
contends that: (1) Mr. Miura’s use of increased levels of lithium iodide
would be expected to increase side reactions; (2) Mr. Miura’s use of
increased rhodium catalyst content (400 ppm to 910 ppm) would be
expected to produce dramatically different reaction kinetics; and (3) Mr.
Miura’s use of a lower water content (2.7 wt% vs. 8 wt%) would be
expected to result in a markedly different impurity profile. Id. at 30–31
(citing Ex. 2014,
3
2:15–20, 5:38–41 (noting that because lithium iodide
increases side reactions, its “content must . . . be carefully set”), 8:21–25).
Mr. Miura concedes that his experiments do not match those used in
the ’095 patent exactly, but asserts “it was not feasible” to do so. Ex. 1005
¶¶ 10, 21. Mr. Miura also asserts that the differences in reaction liquid
composition would not be expected to affect the determination of whether
DME is necessarily present in the process disclosed in the ’095 patent,
stating:
The slight difference in weight % of methyl iodide, water,
acetic acid, lithium iodide, and rhodium in Experiment 1 as
compared to ‘Example’ from the ’095 Patent is inconsequential
to the outcome of the experiment relating to the presence of
DME in the first and second overheads and that methanol is
found in the liquid charged into the 80-plate distillation column.
This is because Experiment 1 shows that a reaction liquid
having the same constituents as set forth in the Example of the
’095 Patent and subjected to similar conditions results in the

as containing 14 wt% methyl iodide, 8 wt% water, 1.6 wt% methyl acetate,
70.9 wt% acetic acid, 5 wt% lithium iodide, and 400 ppm rhodium).
3
U.S. Patent No. 7,683,212 B2 issued March 23, 2010 and is directed to a
method for producing “acetic acid by continuously reacting methanol with
carbon monoxide in the presence of a rhodium catalyst, an iodide salt,
methyl iodide, methyl acetate, and water.” Ex. 2014, Abstract.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

13
presence of DME being formed form the reaction liquid.
Because these reactants are known to produce DME under these
conditions, at least some DME will always be present under
these conditions, regardless of any slight differences in the
concentrations of the reactants. Furthermore, even if not
exactly the same as in the Example, the composition
(proportion of the components) of the reaction liquid used in
Experiment 1 is within the scope of the reaction liquids
expressly taught in the ’095 Patent at, for example, column 4,
lines 25, 42-45, 48, 52, and 55-57[].
Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis added).
“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that
the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in
the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary
skill.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Cont’l
Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient.” Cont’l Can, 948 F.2d at 1269.
We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s experimental evidence
is insufficient to conclude that the process of the ’095 patent necessarily will
result in a “second overhead stream comprising methyl iodide, dimethyl
ether, and said at least one PRC,” as required in claim 1. Ex. 1001, 12:16–
18. First, Mr. Miura does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have considered the differences in weight percent of methyl
iodide, water, acetic acid, lithium iodide, and rhodium between the Miura
experiment and the Example of the ’095 patent to be “slight” or
“inconsequential.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does
not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

14
entitled to little or no weight.”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the Board is entitled to weigh
declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants
discounting the opinions expressed).
Second, Mr. Miura provides no credible support for his conclusion
that as long as the two processes use the same constituents—even if at
significantly different concentrations—the same products necessarily will be
obtained in the second overhead. Nor does Mr. Miura provide a credible
explanation as to why “it was not feasible” to run the experiment using
reaction conditions identical to, or at least closer to, the conditions set forth
in the examples of the ’095 patent.
Finally, Mr. Miura does not explain sufficiently the basis for his
apparent conclusion that, because his experiment was run within the broad
range of reaction conditions disclosed in the ’095 patent, any variations in
operating conditions between the ’095 patent examples and his experiment
would not influence whether DME is found in the second overhead.
Although an experiment need not recreate a disclosed embodiment
precisely to establish inherency, the proponent of the experimental evidence
must demonstrate sufficiently that the variations would not affect the
relevant outcome, in this case the presence of DME in the second overhead.
Upon review of the record as a whole, we are not persuaded that Mr. Miura
provides sufficient explanation for why the variations in his experiment
would not affect the formation of DME in the second overhead of the ’095
patent. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Miura’s experimental
evidence shows that DME is necessarily present in the second overhead
when run under the conditions disclosed in the Example and Example 1 of
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

15
the ’095 patent. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by the ’095 patent.
C. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over the ’171 Patent
Petitioner asserts that claim 1 would have been obvious over the ’171
patent. Pet. 29–35. Patent Owner responds that the ’171 patent does not
render claim 1 obvious because, inter alia, the ’171 patent does not disclose
or suggest the presence of DME in the second overhead. Prelim. Resp. 43.
To demonstrate that DME is necessarily present in the second
overhead, Petitioner again relies upon Mr. Miura’s experimental evidence
based on the examples of the ’095 patent. Pet. 30 (“DME is present in the
second overhead stream of Figure 1 of the ’171 patent inherently, as shown
above with respect to Ground 1.”). For the reasons discussed above, we are
not persuaded that Mr. Miura’s experiment confirms that DME is necessarily
present in the second overhead of the ’095 patent. Moreover, even if the
experiment were sufficient to show that DME is necessarily present in the
second overhead of the ’095 patent, Petitioner presents no credible evidence
to show that these experimental results apply equally to the ’171 patent
process and compositions. See Pet. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Mr. Miura’s experimental results establish that the process of
the ’171 patent discloses or suggests the presence of DME in the second
overhead.
Petitioner also asserts—in its claim chart—that, during prosecution,
the Applicants admitted that DME was formed when water was added in the
distillation step of the ’171 patent. Pet. 33. Based on this alleged admission,
Petitioner concludes that the addition of water in the distillation step of the
’171 patent “was the equivalent of increasing DME.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009,
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

16
20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32, 73). This argument, however, takes Applicants’
statement in the Response to Office Action out of context. Specifically,
Petitioner omits the final two sentences of the section upon which it relies,
which assert that “formation of DME is not favored,” “would be
unexpected,” and is “not an inherent feature of the process.” Ex. 1009, 20–
21. In addition, in the same Response to Office Action, Applicants stated
that a “sufficient amount” of water must be added to produce DME. Id. at
22, 23 (“[The ’171 patent] fails to suggest adding water to the distillation
column in an amount effect[ive] to produce DME.”). Petitioner does not
explain why this assertion is incorrect or why the amount of water added in
the ’171 patent was sufficient to form DME.
4
Ex. 1001, 8:28–29. Thus, on
this record, we are not persuaded that Applicants’ statements during
prosecution are tantamount to an admission that DME necessarily would be
found in the second overhead of the ’171 patent.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
established that DME is necessarily present in the overhead of the ’171
patent or that it would have been obvious—in view of the ’171 patent
disclosure or knowledge in the art—to add DME (directly, or via reaction
through addition of a sufficient amount of water) in the process of the ’171
patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that claim 1 would have been obvious over the ’171 patent.

4
Mr. Cooper concludes that the ’171 patent discloses adding the “required
amount” of water to produce DME. Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. Mr. Cooper does not
explain, however, what the required amount of water would be, or how he
arrived at this conclusion. Moreover, Mr. Cooper’s analysis and conclusions
are based on an assumption that Applicants had admitted that any addition of
water would result in DME formation. Id. ¶ 72.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

17
D. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over the ’095 Patent and Akinori
Petitioner contends that claim 1 would have been obvious over the
combination of the ’095 patent and Akinori, a review paper directed to
existing processes for the production of acetic acid from methanol. Pet. 35–
36; Ex. 1013, 1. Akinori discloses that, during the production process of
acetic acid, in addition to the primary conversion of methanol and carbon
monoxide to acetic acid, several side reactions occur, including the
production of DME. Ex. 1013, 8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87–88. Akinori notes that
“these side reactions are equilibrium reactions” and, therefore, the
intermediates “ultimately change into acetic acid.” Ex. 1013, 8.
Patent Owner asserts that claim 1 is not rendered obvious by the ’095
patent and Akinori because Akinori does not disclose, expressly or
inherently, that DME is present in the second overhead of the ’095 patent,
and Petitioner provides no articulated reasoning explaining why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the ’095 patent and Akinori.
Prelim. Resp. 49–50, 52. We agree.
Although Akinori discloses that DME is produced as a side reaction,
Petitioner provides no credible evidence to demonstrate that Akinori’s
intermediates necessarily would travel to, or be generated in, the second
overhead of the ’095 patent. Nor does Petitioner provide articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning to explain why or how one of ordinary
skill in the art would have sought to combine Akinori and the ’095 patent to
arrive at the method of claim 1.
Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that claim 1 would have been obvious over the ’095 patent and Akinori.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

18
E. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over the ’095 Patent and the ’171 Patent
Petitioner further asserts that claim 1 would have been obvious over
the ’095 and ’171 patents in combination. Pet. 36–39. This combination,
however, relies upon the ’171 patent process to disclose DME inherently in
the second overhead. Id. at 37. As noted above, we are not persuaded that
Petitioner has demonstrated that the presence of water in the distillation step
of the ’171 patent necessarily results in the presence of DME in the second
overhead. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious
over the combination of the ’095 and ’171 patents.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
claim 1 of the ’886 patent is unpatentable.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
IPR2014-01515
Patent 7,223,886 B2

19
PETITIONER:
Jeffrey R. Lomprey
George C. Beck
Foley & Lardner LLP
daicel_ipr@foley.com

PATENT OWNER:
Justin Krieger
Troy Petersen
Joshua Pond
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
jkrieger@kilpatricktownsend.com
tpetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com
jpond@kilpatricktownsend.com