Rogel et al.v.Schabron et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2018

13490316 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Entered: December 11, 2018
Tel: 571-272-9797

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

ESTRELLA ROGEL,
CESAR OVALLES, and MICHAEL MOIR,

Junior Party
(Application 12/833,814 and Application 13/294,609),
v.

JOHN F. SCHABRON
and JOSEPH F. ROVANI JR.,

Senior Party
(Patent 8,367,425).

Patent Interference No. 106,064
(Technology Center 1600)

Before SALLY GARDNER LANE, JAMES T. MOORE,
and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT - Bd. R. 127(a)

Interference 106,064

- 2 -
The Board determined that Schabron showed entitlement to benefit for 1
Count 1 of Provisional Application 60/711,599 (August 25, 2005) and 2
Nonprovisional Application 11/510,491 (August 25, 2006). (Decision, Paper 105). 3
This interference is redeclared to reflect that change. Paper 106. 4
Rogel’s earliest alleged priority date of March 1, 2009 (Paper 38) is after 5
both of these dates. Accordingly, Rogel cannot prevail on priority. 6
Accordingly, 7
It is ORDERED that judgment on priority is entered against junior party 8
Rogel as to Count 1, the sole Count, of the interference (Declaration, Paper 1, at 4; 9
Redeclaration, Paper 94, at 4); 10
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12–20 of Rogel 11
application 13/294,609, which correspond to Count 1, are FINALLY REFUSED. 12
35 U.S.C. § 135(a);1 13
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–28 of Rogel application 12/833,814, 14
which correspond to Count 1, are FINALLY REFUSED. 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 15
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to 35 USC § 135(c) 16
and Bd. R. 205 regarding the filing of settlement agreements; 17
FURTHER ORDERED that a party seeking judicial review timely serve 18
notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 19
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 104.2. See also Bd. R. 8(b). Attention is directed to Biogen 20
Idec MA, Inc., v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648, 21

1 Any reference to a statute in this Judgment is to the statute that was in effect on March
15, 2013 unless otherwise indicated. See Pub. L. 112-29, § 3(n), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011).

Interference 106,064

- 3 -
654–57 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that pre-AIA § 146 review was eliminated 1
for interference proceedings declared after September 15, 2012); and 2
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be entered into the 3
administrative records of the involved Schabron patent and Rogel applications. 4

cc (via electronic mail):

Attorney for Junior Party Rogel:

Patrick J. Coyne
Clara N. Jimenez
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
patrick.coyne@finnegan.com
clara.jimenez@finnegan.com

Attorney for Senior Party Schabron:

Luke Santangelo
Alfred K. Wiedmann Jr.
Nicole Ressue
David S. Kerr
Misha Gregory Macaw
Travis Whitsitt
SANTANGELO LAW OFFICES
lukes@idea-asset.com
alw@idea-asset.com
nicoler@idea-asset.com
dkerr@idea-asset.com
misham@idea-asset.com
travisw@idea-asset.com
Interference 106,064

- 4 -

W. Todd Baker
Charles L. Gholz
OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
tbaker@oblon.com
cgholz@oblon.com

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Entered: December 11, 2018
Tel: 571-272-9797
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
JOHN F. SCHABRON
and JOSEPH F. ROVANI JR.,
Junior Party1
(Patent 8,367,425),
v.
ESTRELLA ROGEL,
CESAR OVALLES, and MICHAEL MOIR,
Senior Party2
(Application 12/833,814 and Application 13/294,609).
Patent Interference No. 106,064
(Technology Center 1600)
Before SALLY GARDNER LANE, JAMES T. MOORE,
and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON MOTIONS
37 C.F.R. § 41.125
1 The real party in interest is identified as The University of Wyoming
Research Center, doing business as Western Research Institute. Paper 7, 1.
2 The real party in interest is identified as Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Paper 12, 1.
Interference 106,064

- 2 -
I. Background 1
An interference was declared under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a)3 on October 5, 2016. 2
Paper 1. John F. Schabron and Joseph F. Rovani, Jr. (“Schabron” or “Western 3
Research”) were assigned the status of junior party with an initial application filing 4
date of September 23, 2011. Estrella Rogel, Cesar Ovalles, and Michael Moir 5
(“Rogel” or “Chevron”) were assigned the status of senior party with an initial 6
application filing date of March 11, 2010. Paper 1, 3–5. The interference was 7
subsequently redeclared to add Rogel Application 13/294,609. Paper 94. 8
The interference Count is Claim 5 of Schabron U.S. Patent 8,367,425 or 9
Claim 1 of Rogel U.S. Patent Application 12/833,814. Paper 1, 3. Each (with any 10
intervening claims) reads as follows, with emphasis on terms disputed in this 11
proceeding. 12
Schabron Claim 1. A method for determining asphaltene stability in a 13
hydrocarbon-containing material having solvated asphaltenes therein 14
comprising the steps of: 15
(a) intentionally precipitating an amount of the asphaltenes from a 16
liquid sample of the hydrocarbon-containing material with an alkane mobile 17
phase solvent in a column that has a substantially chemically inert stationary 18
phase established therein, wherein the substantially chemically inert 19
stationary phase is substantially chemically inert relative to the precipitated 20
asphaltenes; 21
(b) dissolving a first amount and a second amount of the precipitated 22
asphaltenes by changing the alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile 23
phase solvent having a solubility parameter that is higher than the alkane 24
mobile phase solvent; 25
(c) monitoring the concentration of eluted fractions from the column; 26

3 Any reference to a statute in the Decision is to the statute that was in effect
on March 15, 2013 unless otherwise indicated. See Pub. L. 112-29, § 3(n), 125
Stat. 284, 293 (2011).
Interference 106,064

- 3 -
(d) creating a solubility profile of the dissolved asphaltenes in the 1
hydrocarbon containing material; and 2
(e) determining one or more asphaltene stability parameters of the 3
hydrocarbon containing material. 4
5
Schabron Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said step of 6
dissolving comprises the step of dissolving by gradually and continuously 7
changing the alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent 8
having a solubility parameter that is at least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane 9
mobile phase. 10
11
Paper 5, 2–3 (emphasis added) 12
13
Rogel Claim 1. A method for determining asphaltene stability in a 14
hydrocarbon-containing material having solvated asphaltenes therein, the 15
method comprising the steps of: 16
(a) precipitating an amount of the asphaltenes from a liquid sample of 17
the hydrocarbon-containing material with an alkane mobile phase solvent in 18
a column; 19
(b) dissolving a first amount and a second amount of the precipitated 20
asphaltenes by gradually and continuously changing the alkane mobile 21
phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent having a solubility parameter at 22
least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane mobile phase solvent; 23
(c) monitoring the concentration of eluted fractions from the column; 24
(d) creating a solubility profile of the dissolved asphaltenes in the 25
hydrocarbon-containing material; and 26
(e) determining one or more asphaltene stability parameters of the 27
hydrocarbon-containing material. 28
29
Paper 13, 2. 30
31
Following a conference call on December 20, 2016, the following motions 32
were authorized by the Board. Paper 22, 4–5. 33
1. Schabron Motion 1 – Claim correspondence. 34
Interference 106,064

- 4 -
2. Schabron Motion 2 – For judgment based on unpatentability (35 U.S.C. 1
§112, ¶¶ 1 and 2). 2
3. Schabron Motion 3 – For benefit. 3
4. Rogel Motion 1 – For judgment based on unpatentability (35 U.S.C. 4
§112, ¶ 1). 5
5. Rogel Motion 2 – Claim correspondence. 6
Upon a request for rehearing (Paper 25) Schabron was permitted an 7
additional motion by a decision on rehearing, noted below. Paper 31. 8
6. Schabron Motion 4 – To redefine the interfering subject matter by adding 9
a Count. 10
It appears that Schabron has filed only Schabron Motion 3 (Paper 53), while 11
Rogel has filed Rogel Motion 1 (Paper 71) and Rogel Motion 2 (Paper 72). 12
Oppositions (Papers 81, 82, and 92) and Replies (Papers 96, 97, and 98), along 13
with various exhibit lists and exhibits, have been filed with the Board. 14
Although the parties requested oral argument (Papers 101 and 102), the 15
Board deems argument unnecessary to the resolution of the motions presented for 16
decision. Accordingly, the requests for oral argument are denied. 17
The motions are therefore ready for disposition. 18
II. Rogel Motion 1 – Unpatentability 19
of Claims 5, 6, 12–17, 24–27, and 30 of the ’425 Patent 20
(35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶1–2 - written description and enablement) 21
We take up Rogel Motion 1, filed March 2, 2017, first. Paper 71. 22
i. Enablement and Written Description 23
The specification must enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make 24
and use the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. This requirement is met when at the 25
time of filing the application one skilled in the art, having read the specification, 26
Interference 106,064

- 5 -
could practice the invention without “undue experimentation.” In re Wands, 858 1
F.2d 731, 736-37 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rogel bears the burden of establishing 2
entitlement to relief, by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must 4
describe an invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. That description must be in sufficient 5
detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the 6
subject matter claimed. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 7
1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As above, Rogel bears the burden of establishing 8
entitlement to relief, by a preponderance of the evidence. 9
ii. Factual Background 10
Asphaltenes are organic heterocyclic macromolecules which occur in crude 11
oils. When crude oil is extracted from the ground, changes in pressure, 12
temperature, and concentration of the crude oil can increase the tendency of the 13
asphaltenes to agglomerate and precipitate out of solution. Ex. 1012, ¶ 13.4 14
Ex. 1001, ¶ 4. 15
Unwanted asphaltene precipitation is problematic in the petroleum industry 16
as it may plug an oil well or pipeline, decrease oil production, reduce and limit 17
yield of downstream processes, and foul heat exchangers and other refinery 18
equipment. Ex. 1012, ¶ 13. Ex. 1001, ¶ 5. 19
Schabron claim 1 recites a method of determining the stability of asphaltenes 20
in the oil. This is accomplished by three major steps in the claimed process – a 21

4 Exhibit 1012 is the declaration testimony of Dr. Lante Carbognani. We find
Dr. Carbognani qualified to testify as to the technical subject matter of this
interference based upon his education and experience. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 1–8 and
Ex. 1006.
Interference 106,064

- 6 -
precipitation step to cause the asphaltene to come out of solution, a dissolving step 1
with a solvent, and a collecting and analyzing step to determine the stability of the 2
asphaltenes Ex. 1002, 31:12–22. 3
Schabron claim 5 recites a specific manner of dissolving the asphaltene and 4
changing the solvent - resulting in a final mobile phase solvent having a solubility 5
parameter that is at least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane mobile phase. Id., 31:38–6
42. 7
Rogel is of the view that the differing approaches of the parties to the 8
dissolving step is a fundamental difference between the two processes. Rogel urges 9
that these differences result in different elution profiles that require different 10
analysis to determine the characteristics of the precipitated and dissolved 11
asphaltenes. Paper 71, 2, citing Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 15-20. Specifically, during the 12
dissolving step, Schabron is said to change the solvent mobile phase in a step-wise 13
fashion, resulting in a separation profile with peaks representing different soluble 14
portions of asphaltene being spaced apart in time. Id., citing Ex. 1012, ¶ 16. On the 15
other hand, Rogel is said to gradually and continuously modify the mobile phase 16
solvents, resulting in a more detailed solubility profile of connected peaks or a 17
peak and a shoulder. Id., citing Ex. 1012, ¶ 17. 18
This decision turns on a matter of claim interpretation. 19
iii. Arguments 20
Written Description 21
“Gradually and Continuously Changing the First Final Mobile Phase 22
Solvent to a Second Final Mobile Phase Solvent” 23
24
Rogel first asserts that claim 5 of Schabron’s ’425 patent recites “gradually 25
and continuously changing the alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase 26
Interference 106,064

- 7 -
solvent” (referred to generally as the “gradually and continuously” limitation). 1
Paper 71, 6. According to Rogel, Schabron’s ’425 patent does not mention or 2
provide a sufficient written description of the concept of “gradually and 3
continuously changing the alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase 4
solvent.” Id., citing Ex. 1012, ¶ 23. 5
In short, Rogel asserts that “[t]his limitation is disclosed and amply 6
supported by Rogel’s ’814 application but is not disclosed in Schabron’s 7
’425 specification. Id., citing Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 23–24 and Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 37–40. Thus, 8
according to Rogel, Schabron lacks written description and enablement support for 9
the subject matter of the Count.” Paper 71, 4. 10
Rogel’s contention appears to have some superficial merit as “gradually and 11
continuously” does not occur verbatim within the specification of the ’425 patent, 12
until it appears in claim 12. Ex. 1002, generally, see esp. 32:7–19. However, as 13
noted above, the test is not whether the terms occur verbatim. 14
We start with an interpretation of the phrase “gradually and continuously.” 15
Rogel asserts that, as the phrase appears nowhere in Schabron’s specification, it 16
must be interpreted according to Rogel’s specification as the originating disclosure. 17
Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. 18
19 Cir. 2009). 19
It does appear that Schabron attempted to become involved in an 20
interference by copying claim language. Paper 71, 9. See also Ex. 1009, 2. As 21
noted during prosecution in a filing dated July 6, 2012 in the involved patent: 22
The Office should also be aware that the instant application, owned by WRI, 23
has claims with which claims of an application (US Pat. App. No. 24
12/833,814) owned by a different entity may interfere. Declaration of an 25
interference would be premature at this point in time because neither the 26
Interference 106,064

- 8 -
instant case, nor US Pat. App. No. 12/833,814 has received a notice of 1
allowance. It is also of note that the instant application (owned by WRI) 2
claims priority to a first nonprovisional application filed in August of 2006 3
and a US provisional application filed in 2005, while US Pat. App. 4
No. 12/833,814 claims priority to a provisional applications filed several 5
years later in 2009 and 2010. 6
Id. 7
Rogel urges that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “continuously” is 8
“without interruption.” Paper 71, 6. Dr. Carbognani so testifies. Ex. 1012, ¶ 25. 9
He asserts that continuously changing the solvent means changing the solvent 10
without interruption. Schabron does not challenge this interpretation. Paper 92, 6. 11
This is a reasonable interpretation of the claim term, and we find “continuously” to 12
mean “without interruption.” 13
The term “gradually” is a bit more problematic. On the surface, the term 14
“gradually” might seem by its plain meaning to exclude more rapid changes. 15
Rogel, however, urges that the copied term is specifically defined in the Rogel 16
’814 application. Id., 7. 17
We are cited to the following definition for “gradually” in the ’814 18
application: 19
The term gradually as used herein shall be understood to mean that the 20
alkane mobile phase solvent is incrementally removed from the column over 21
a period of time by continuously adding a final mobile phase solvent having 22
a solubility parameter at least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane mobile phase 23
solvent to the column. 24
25
Ex. 1001, ¶ 37. 26
Dr. Carbognani testifies that this relationship can be graphically illustrated in 27
this manner: 28
Interference 106,064

- 9 -
1
The figures are graphical representations 2
of feed stream and polarity over time. 3
Ex. 1012, ¶ 28. 4
5
According to Dr. Carbognani, a linear gradient of polarity changes over 6
time, and asphaltenes eluted from the column at each time are related to the solvent 7
power of the mobile phase. Id. ¶ 29. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art 8
would understand the phrase “‘gradually and continuously changing the alkane 9
mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent’ as required by the Count to 10
mean the amount of alkane mobile phase solvent fed into the column is 11
incrementally decreased from 100% to 0% over a period of time without 12
interruption while the amount of final mobile phase solvent fed into the column is 13
incrementally increased from 0% to 100% over the same period of time.” Id. ¶ 31. 14
While this certainly makes a degree of sense when one considers the invention of 15
Rogel and Schabron, we do not agree that the language of the Count requires us to 16
import such specific limitations. 17
Interference 106,064

- 10 -
Schabron, on the other hand, urges that Rogel’s interpretation is incorrect. 1
Paper 92, 3. According to Schabron, the term gradually changing solvent is only 2
properly defined in terms of removal of the solvent from the column. Id. 3
Vladislav Lobodin, Ph. D.5 testifies that the only factor in assessing whether a 4
solvent change is “gradual” should be whether it results in “incremental removal” 5
of the solvent from the column. Ex. 2021, ¶ 6. Both parties seem to agree that 6
there is no upper or lower limit on the period of time over which the change takes 7
place. Ex. 1012, ¶ 31 and 2021, ¶ 7. However, we observe that Schabron overly 8
limits the definition to focus on removal. The removal is accomplished, according 9
to the specification, by none other than addition of the new solvent. 10
Dr. Lobodin is somewhat more persuasive than Dr. Carbognani in this 11
regard, as Dr. Carobgnani adds much that is exemplary from the ’814 application 12
specification into his limiting definition. However, we see no persuasive reason 13
even from Dr. Lobodin to deviate from the intrinsic evidence in this situation. As 14
we cannot rely on the plain meaning of gradually (given the definition given in the 15
specification) we conclude that “gradually,” therefore, for purposes of this decision 16
means that “the alkane mobile phase solvent is incrementally removed from the 17
column over a period of time by continuously adding a final mobile phase 18
solvent.” Ex. 1001, ¶ 37. 19
We next turn to whether this claim, so construed, has written descriptive 20
support within the Schabron specification. 21

5 Dr. Lobodin is Schabron’s technical witness in this proceeding. We find him
qualified to testify to the technical matters in this interference by virtue of his
training and experience. Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 1–16 and Ex. 2017.
Interference 106,064

- 11 -
According to Rogel, the portions Schabron cited to support the term 1
“gradually” in claim 5 of the ’425 patent are contained in the parent application of 2
the ’425 patent, as follows: 3
The solvent is then switched to a stronger solvent, or a series of stronger 4
solvents of increasing solvent strength, which dissolves a portion or all of 5
the precipitated material. 6
7
Ex. 1011, 21:14–16. 8
According to Rogel and its witness Dr. Carbognani, these sentences do not 9
convey to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the solvents are changed 10
gradually and continuously. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 58-60. Rather, the solvents are 11
“switched,” abruptly, from one to the other. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 26, 58. 12
Rogel also asserts that the hardware of the ’425 Specification is not capable of 13
gradually and continuously changing the mobile phase solvent. Paper 71, 8. 14
Schabron, on the other hand, points out that Schabron’s Provisional 15
Application No. 60/711,599 (the “Schabron ’599 Application”) (Ex. 2006), filed in 16
2005, and Schabron’s 2006 priority Application No. 11/510,491 (the “Schabron 17
’491 Application”)(Ex. 2007) show where certain claim limitations are adequately 18
supported. Paper 92, 6. Schabron also observes that the above two priority 19
applications are incorporated into the Schabron ’425 Patent (see Ex. 2005, col. 1, 20
ll. 7-24). Id. 21
Schabron and Dr. Lobodin urge that a gradual solvent change, as properly 22
construed, is any solvent change at the column inlet (as there is no lower limit on 23
time duration of such change) that results in a replaced solvent output (versus time) 24
removal curve from the column that is smooth and non-vertical (this is said to be 25
incremental removal). Paper 92, 5, citing Ex. 2,016 ¶¶ 37-53. According to 26
Interference 106,064

- 12 -
Schabron, such a construction – much broader than the few examples provided in 1
the Rogel ’814 Application – includes Schabron’s quicker solvent switches. 2
Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 69-80. Therefore, Schabron asserts that Rogel is incorrect when it 3
treats “gradually” changing as excluding such single step changes. Paper 92, citing 4
Paper 71, 8, ll. 23-25. 5
We find Dr. Lobodin’s testimony to be more persuasive on this point. We 6
agree with his observation that with changes in input, elution columns take time to 7
effect changes in output. His experimental data, to the extent we deem it reliable, 8
tends to confirm this. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 46–48.6 We are provided no contrary 9
persuasive evidence that the outflow from the column does not change over time. 10
The problem lies in the claim language used – gradually is a term of degree 11
and not specifically defined as a specific input change, but rather on the removal of 12
one solvent by the addition of another, which is not quite the same. While an 13
instantaneous changeover of feed may seem outside the normal scope of the term 14
“gradually,” we are persuaded that the fluid dynamics of the column act to make 15
the claimed changeover occur over a period of time. 16
We turn to the crux of Rogel’s claim – that nowhere does Schabron’s 17
’425 patent disclose, let alone explain in terms sufficient to establish Schabron’s 18
possession of, the concept of “gradually and continuously changing the alkane 19
mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent.” Paper 71, 10; Ex. 1012, 20
¶ 44. Rogel asserts that the term “step gradient” is used, repeatedly and 21

6 Rogel has raised issues relating to the accuracy of the graphs provided, especially
regarding the upper ends and sensor saturation. Paper 81, 19, citing Ex. 2016, ¶
48. We think that, although the sensors may be saturated, it nevertheless takes
some period of time to get there. Accordingly, we find that graphs 2A and 2B can
be relied upon in part to show outflows that change over time.
Interference 106,064

- 13 -
consistently, to describe the solvent changing step. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 44-61. According 1
to Rogel, Schabron’s ’425 specification unequivocally conveys to persons of 2
ordinary skill in the art to implement a step gradient sequence for the solvent-3
changing step change—i.e., to change solvents discretely, in a step-wise fashion, 4
rather than “gradually and continuously.” Paper 71, 10, citing Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 44-61. 5
We think the evidence of record supports a broader interpretation of the 6
description in Schabron ’425. The term “step gradient” is, as noted above, not 7
necessarily an abrupt shift of the output – it reflects the change of the solvent input 8
into the column. Rogel points to two particular examples in Schabron’s 9
’425 specification: 10
4. Step gradient times: 0 min. heptane, 15 min. cyclohexane, 30 min, 11
toluene:methanol (98:2) (v:v), 40 min. heptane.” 12
13
Ex. 1002, 15:21–23. 14
4. Step gradient times: 0 min. heptane, 15 min. cyclohexane, 30 min. 15
toluene, 40 min. solvent four (cyclohexanone or methylene chloride), 16
50 min. heptane. 17
18
Id., 16:29–32. 19
Each of these examples occurs over some period of time, even if changes in 20
input are abrupt. Moreover, although omitted by Rogel in its discussion, the 21
description discusses variables such as injection volume and column size, which at 22
least in part we think inevitably would affect solvent residence times, and solvent 23
changeover times, in the column. Id. 15:9–11. 24
The Schabron changeover therefore appears to us to meet the incremental 25
removal contemplated by the term “gradually” in that the changeover occurs over a 26
period of time, even if the input is abruptly changed from one solvent to another. 27
Interference 106,064

- 14 -
Rogel also observes that Schabron’s apparatus includes a solvent selection 1
valve that only provides discrete changes between solvents, having no capability to 2
mix the solvents in a gradual and continuous manner. Paper 71, 13, citing 3
Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 49-52. Rogel also points to differences in the separation profiles 4
achieved in Schabron when compared to Rogel as “further underscore[ing] this 5
lack of support.” Id. 6
While we understand that there are differing levels of resolution depending 7
on the rate of change of solvent changeover, both parties agree that the claims at 8
issue have no upper or lower limits on the changeover. While we understand 9
Rogel’s point of view that it appears the term “gradually” is rendered meaningless 10
by this interpretation (Paper 97, 1), the difficulty in this situation arises from 11
Rogel’s own definition of the term - and the lack of specific parameters in the 12
claim. Accordingly, although it is a close call, we are not persuaded by Rogel’s 13
assertion. 14
Solubility Profile of the Dissolved Asphaltenes 15
Rogel next asserts that Schabron does not have support for this limitation. 16
According to Rogel, Rogel’s ’814 application provides a detailed description 17
regarding how to create a solubility profile of the asphaltenes. Paper 71, 14, citing 18
Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 34–37 and Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 44–45. Dr. Carbognani testifies that persons 19
of ordinary skill would understand that “a solubility profile of the dissolved 20
asphaltenes” of the Count means an elution profile having a curve that represents 21
the solubility parameter distribution of the asphaltenes, which can be presented 22
with either a time scale or a solubility parameter scale. Ex. 1012, ¶ 38. 23
Schabron asserts that this interpretation is incorrect. Paper 92, 14. Schabron 24
does assert a solubility profile is a profile that merely, in some way, represents or is 25
Interference 106,064

- 15 -
based on solubility (of the asphaltenes). Id., 15, citing Ex. 2021, ¶ 24. Schabron 1
asserts that it is not proper to import “solubility parameter” into the term’s 2
construction. 3
We find the broadest reasonable interpretation is more in keeping with 4
Schabron’s interpretation, but we also find the intrinsic evidence in the Rogel 5
application even more persuasive - i.e., a solubility profile is simply a 6
characteristic elution pattern. Ex. 1001, ¶ 38. 7
Rogel asserts that the specification of Schabron’s ’425 patent fails to 8
disclose, describe, or define the term “solubility profile” and instead is silent about 9
the limitation of “creating a solubility profile of the dissolved asphaltenes” of the 10
Count. Ex. 1012, ¶ 33. 11
More specifically, Dr. Carbognani testifies that, to obtain an elution profile 12
having a curve that represents the solubility parameter distribution of the 13
asphaltenes (i.e., a solubility profile), the solvents in the mobile phase have to be 14
changed gradually such that the asphaltenes eluted from the column at each time 15
are related to the solvent power of the mobile phase. Ex. 1012, ¶ 63. 16
He testifies further that Schabron’s ’425 patent does not describe changing 17
the solvents “gradually and continuously.” Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 44-61. Instead, 18
Dr. Carbognani observes that Schabron ’425 describes changing solvents 19
discretely, in a step-wise fashion, replacing one solvent with a different solvent, to 20
separate asphaltenes into different fractions, separated in time and shown as 21
discrete and distinct peaks in an elution profile. According to Dr. Carbognani, 22
Schabron’s ’425 patent describes its elution profile acquired by Schabron’s step-23
gradient sequence not as a “solubility profile” but, rather, as a “separation profile.” 24
Paper 71, 16, citing Ex. 1002, 9:49; Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 42-61. The separation profile, it 25
Interference 106,064

- 16 -
is said, does not have a curve that represents the solubility parameter distribution 1
of the asphaltenes. Ex. 1012, ¶ 64. 2
Rather, Rogel urges it is to show asphaltenes separated into different 3
fractions by the step-gradient sequence based on the solvent by which they were 4
eluted. Ex. 1012, ¶ 64. Accordingly, Rogel asserts that Schabron’s ’425 patent 5
does not describe “a solubility profile of the dissolved asphaltenes,” let alone how 6
to create one. Ex. 1012, ¶ 65. 7
On the other hand, for Schabron Dr. Lobodin testifies that the term 8
“distribution profiles” is what its separation profiles actually show – the 9
distribution of the asphaltene fractions in terms of their solubilities, and thus of the 10
entire asphaltene. Ex. 2021, ¶ 26. 11
Schabron further urges that there are various separation profiles in the 12
Schabron ’425 Patent (e.g., Figs. 1, 5, 6, 8) – which each show how much of the 13
precipitated asphaltenes (based on, e.g., peak heights/areas) are soluble in each of 14
the various solvents – as solubility profiles. These, it is urged, are the “rapid 15
measurements of asphaltene solubility” to which the Schabron ’425 Patent refers. 16
Paper 92, 15, citing Ex. 2005, col. 10, l. 40-43. Ex. 2021, ¶ 26. 17
Interference 106,064

- 17 -
1
Schabron Figure 1 is a graphical illustration 2
of absorption v. elution time 3
4
We find this evidence and line of argument to be more persuasive, in that it 5
gives the claim its most reasonably broad interpretation without reading additional 6
limitations into it. Moreover, we find Schabron’s evidence persuasive that a 7
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the exemplary graphs are 8
profiles of solubility in differing solvent materials. 9
Accordingly, we find that Rogel has not shown by a preponderance of the 10
evidence that Schabron’s claims fail to meet the written description requirement of 11
35 U.S.C. § 112. 12
Enablement of Claims 5, 6, 12–17, 24–27 and 30 of the ’425 Patent 13
Rogel next asserts that Schabron’s ’425 patent fails to describe the concept 14
of “gradually and continuously changing the first final mobile phase solvent to a 15
Interference 106,064

- 18 -
second final mobile phase solvent” as required. Paper 71, 16, citing Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 1
42–61. 2
Rogel notes that Schabron’s ’425 patent teaches instead using step-gradient 3
sequence to generate separation profiles with peaks separated apart from one 4
another (i.e., no overlapping area between peaks). According to Rogel, Schabron’s 5
’425 patent emphasizes that a “separation profile” must have separate, discrete 6
peaks with high resolution. Id., 17, citing Ex. 1002, 14:51–55 (stating that 7
“[p]eaks must be resolved well.”). 8
Dr. Carbognani testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the 9
’425 patent as a whole, would have understood that a profile having peaks with 10
overlapping areas (e.g., Ex. 1001, Figure 2) or one peak and one shoulder as 11
described in the ’814 application (e.g., id., Figure 1) was not Schabron’s invention. 12
According to Dr. Carbogani, Schabron’s ’425 patent is completely silent about 13
how to analyze these profiles. Ex. 1012, ¶ 68. More specifically, Dr. Carbognani 14
testifies that Schabron’s ’425 patent provides no guidance that would have enabled 15
a person of ordinary skill in the art to analyze such an elution profile for 16
determining the characteristics of the asphaltenes in the sample. Ex. 1012, ¶ 69. 17
On the other hand, Schabron urges that a person of ordinary skill in the art 18
would be able to “creat[e] a solubility profile” by practicing a separation-type 19
solubility profile of Schabron’s ’425 Patent, not an overlapping-type profile. 20
Paper 92, 22, citing Ex. 2021 ¶ 53. Schabron urges that the equipment used in the 21
’425 patent used to generate it enables it. Id., citing Ex. 2005, 12:52–62; 15:18–22
28; and 16:26–39. Schabron specifically urges that the Waters 600 Controller is 23
such a piece of equipment. Id. 24
We reproduce a pertinent section from Schabron’s specification below: 25
Interference 106,064

- 19 -
On-Column Asphaltene Precipitation: 1
The on-column asphaltene precipitation and re-dissolution 2
experiments were conducted using a Waters 717 auto sampler, a Waters 60F 3
pump with 600 controller, a Waters 1487 ultraviolet/visible absorbance 4
detector, and an Alltech ELSD 800 detector. Elution solvents were reagent 5
grade, with step gradients between solvents. Solutions of residua and 6
asphaltenes were injected. Peak area integration was performed using a 7
Chrom Perfect Spirit 5.5 data system. Various columns and conditions were 8
tested. Pyrolyzed sample solutions were filtered through a 0.45 micron 9
PTFE filter prior to injection. ELSD separation peak areas were corrected 10
for small blank peaks due to the step gradient solvent changes. 11
12
Ex. 1002, 12:52–64. We find that the above describes analyzing peak area of 13
eluted asphaltenes with step gradients between solvents. 14
Dr. Lobodin also testifies that the graphs created by Schabron have time 15
versus detector response axes (as does Rogel), and each therefore also reflects 16
solubility of the asphaltenes. Ex. 2016, ¶ 25. According to him, “they absolutely 17
represent solubility of the asphaltene.” Id. Dr. Lobodin also testifies that a 18
determination of the “ratio of the second peak area to the first peak area” can be 19
done with a separation profile. Ex. 2021, ¶ 55. 20
Moreover, Dr. Lobodin points to this paragraph in Schabrel ’425: 21
Those methods, whether analytical or processing, involving 22
successive dissolution, afford considerable opportunity to characterize the 23
solution of interest. Indeed, for certain applications, it may only be 24
necessary to simply generate a material in the vessel (e.g., by precipitation), 25
and then analyze the material and/or the remnant substance (e.g., remnant 26
liquid). But in some applications, more information about the solution of 27
interest may be desired; such additional information may be acquired upon 28
the afore-described successive dissolution protocol. Such additional 29
information, whether stemming from a separation profile 21 (e.g., peak 30
values, such as peak heights, peak sharpness, and peak areas, and ratios 31
thereof; times until, between or during elution(s), absence of peaks, 32
Interference 106,064

- 20 -
sharpness of peaks, etc.) or from other data, can be, if required, 1
mathematically manipulated (in a manner well known in the art) to provide 2
even more information, thereby enabling even greater control over all types 3
of operations. 4
5
Ex. 2005, 9:39–55. 6
We find this evidence of Schabron’s to be persuasive, as it makes apparent 7
that analyzing the profiles is contemplated by the ’425 patent, and possible by one 8
of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by this second 9
argument. 10
Accordingly, Rogel has not carried its burden of persuasion by a 11
preponderance of the evidence, and we therefore deny Rogel Motion 1. 12
III. Rogel Motion 2 – Designating Schabron 13
Claims 1–4, 7–11, 18–23, and 28–30 Not Corresponding to the Count 14
i. Standard 15
A claim corresponds to a Count if the subject matter of the Count, treated as 16
prior art to the claim, would have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject 17
matter of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(b)(2). The moving party bears the burden 18
of showing that the Count does not anticipate the subject matter of the claims or 19
would not have made the subject matter of the claims at issue obvious to a person 20
of ordinary skill in the art. 21
ii. Arguments 22
Somewhat unusually, Rogel moves to have Schabron claims 1–4, 7–11, 18–23
23, and 28–30 designated as not corresponding to the Count. Paper 72, 1. The 24
basis for this assertion is that Schabron’s claims require a step-gradient sequence, 25
not gradually and continuously. Id., 9. 26
27
Interference 106,064

- 21 -
Gradually and Continuously 1
Rogel notes that Dr. Carbognani has testified that persons of ordinary skill 2
in the art would understand the phrase “gradually and continuously changing the 3
alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent” to mean the amount 4
of alkane mobile phase solvent fed into the column is incrementally decreased 5
from 100% to 0% without interruption over a period of time while the amount of 6
final mobile phase solvent fed into the column is incrementally increased from 0% 7
to 100% without interruption over the same period of time. Paper 72, 3–4 citing 8
Ex. 1012, ¶ 31. 9
Rogel again further asserts that the ordinary meaning of the term 10
“continuously” is without interruption. Ex. 1012, ¶ 25. As a consequence, Rogel 11
asserts that persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand that 12
“continuously” changing the solvent means that the solvent is changed without 13
interruption. Id., citing Ex. 1012, ¶ 25. We have already addressed these 14
contentions above. 15
Schabron’s Involved Claims 1–4, 7–11, 18–234, and 28–30 16
In the Declaration, Schabron Claims 1–30 were designated as corresponding 17
to the Count. Paper 1, 4–5. This designation is presumed to be correct. In order to 18
persuade us to grant the motion, Rogel bears the burden of establishing that the 19
claims are patentably distinct from the Count. 20
In terms of anticipation, Rogel urges that the Schabron ’425 patent claims 1-21
4, 7-11, 18-23, and 28-30 require the step of “changing the alkane mobile phase 22
solvent to a final mobile phase solvent.” Paper 72, 17. Rogel takes the position 23
that Schabron’s ’425 specification and prosecution history establish that the 24
solvent is only changed discretely, i.e., in a step-wise fashion. As the Count does 25
Interference 106,064

- 22 -
not disclose the same discrete, step-wise change in solvent claimed by these claims 1
of Schabron’s ’425 patent, Rogel reasons that the Count does not anticipate 2
claims 1–4, 7–11, 18–23, and 28–30 of Schabron’s ’425 patent. Id. 3
Schabron observes that Rogel is importing a limitation it should not. 4
According to Schabron, the Schabron ’425 Patent and its priority applications 5
disclose more than one embodiment of “changing the alkane mobile phase solvent 6
to a final mobile phase solvent” of Schabron claim 1, therefore making it improper 7
to import a “step-wise” limit (which Schabron refers to as a single step gradient) 8
into the claim. Paper 82, 5. According to Schabron, the Schabron ’425 Patent 9
discloses a repeated incremental step gradient changing of solvents and allows for 10
gradients other than single step. Id. 11
Dr. Lobodin testifies that the Schabron ’425 Patent and its priority 12
applications provide “use of gradients other than a single step” and “solvent 13
transitions that are generated from other than single step solvent switching.” 14
Ex. 2016, ¶ 89. He observes that the Schabron ’425 Patent provides disclosure 15
regarding “solvent mixtures” (i.e., “the term solvent is a broad term that includes 16
… solvent mixtures.” Id., citing Schabron ’491 Application, Ex. 2007, p.9, l. 22-17
24.) We, however, disagree that simply mixing solvents amounts to a disclosure 18
of changing the solvent. 19
However, we do observe that the ’425 patent describes: 20
In particular embodiments, the present invention may provide exploration of 21
rapid measurements of asphaltene solubility perhaps using an on-column 22
material precipitation and dissolution technique. Measurements may be 23
automated perhaps using liquid chromatography equipment (e.g., high 24
performance liquid chromatography (“HPLC”) equipment), perhaps with a 25
step gradient sequence using solvents of increasing solvent strength such as 26
Interference 106,064

- 23 -
but not limited to heptane, cyclohexane, toluene:methanol mixtures and the 1
like. 2
3
Ex. 1002, 10:40–48. This evidence supports a finding that the ’425 patent 4
contemplates multiple steps of differing solvent strengths as a possibility. 5
As a consequence, we agree with Schabron that Schabron’s claim 1 is 6
broader than Rogel’s claim 5, which is one embodiment of the Count, and as a 7
consequence, anticipated thereby. No further arguments were made for dependent 8
claims. 9
We need not address Rogel’s arguments concerning obviousness. 10
Accordingly, Rogel Motion 2 is denied. 11
IV. Schabron Motion 3 – For Benefit 12
of Provisional Application 60/711,599 13
and Nonprovisional Application 11/510,491 14
15
i. Standard 16
A party seeking the benefit of an earlier application must establish that the 17
earlier application is a “constructive reduction to practice” of an embodiment 18
within the scope of the Count. It must also satisfy both the written description and 19
enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.202. 20
The test for sufficiency of the written description is whether the disclosure 21
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the 22
claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 23
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). This is an objective inquiry based 24
on the four corners of the specification. Id. It requires “possession as shown in the 25
disclosure.” The specification must describe the invention in a manner 26
Interference 106,064

- 24 -
understandable to one of ordinary skill and evidence that the inventor actually 1
invented the claimed invention. Id. 2
ii. Argument 3
Schabron asserts that the Schabron ’599 Provisional Application and the 4
Schabron ’491 Application each discloses, and would have disclosed to a person 5
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, all the 6
limitations of Rogel Claim 1, in an enabling manner, and therefore anticipates that 7
claim. Paper 53, 17, citing Dr. Lobodin’s testimony, Ex. 2016, ¶ 87. 8
Accordingly, Schabron urges that each of the Schabron ’599 Provisional 9
Application and the Schabron ’491 Application is a constructive reduction to 10
practice of Count 1 of this interference (defined as Rogel claim 1 or Schabron 11
claim 5), and Schabron should be accorded the benefit for Count 1 of the filing 12
date of each the ’599 Application (Aug. 25, 2005) and the ’491 Application 13
(August 25, 2006). Id. 14
We turn first to the ’491 Application (Ex. 2007), and Schabron’s 15
contentions. 16
It should be noted that Schabron has observed both continuity of prosecution 17
and inventorship, as well as incorporation by reference of the applications. Rogel 18
has not made a material challenge to those contentions. 19
Rogel Claim 1. A method for determining asphaltene stability 20
in a hydrocarbon-containing material having solvated asphaltenes 21
therein, the method comprising the steps of: 22
23
Interference 106,064

- 25 -
We are pointed by Schabron to Ex. 2007, page 2, lines 15–18.7 Paper 53, 9. 1
That section states that “It is therefore an object of certain embodiments of the 2
present inventive technology to provide a rapid on-column precipitation and 3
dissolution method for rapid measurement of a cyclohexane soluble portion of 4
asphaltenes precipitated from a hydrocarbonaceous solution of interest.” Id. 5
6
(a) precipitating an amount of the asphaltenes from a liquid 7
sample of the hydrocarbon-containing material with an alkane mobile 8
phase solvent in a column; 9
10
We are pointed by Schabron to Ex. 2007, page 6, lines 19–25. Paper 53, 10. 11
That section states that: 12
…precipitating a material (e.g., a solid material, a viscous liquid material, 13
and/or a gel material) from the solution of interest; and generating a remnant 14
liquid upon performing the step of precipitating a material from the solution 15
of interest. The step of establishing a precipitant (any material that effects 16
precipitation) in a vessel may be performed by adding the precipitant 17
(heptane, pentane, and/or isooctane, as but a few examples) to the vessel in 18
liquid form, but indeed other methods (e.g., adding a powder form of the 19
precipitant to the vessel and then adding a dissolving liquid) may be used. 20
Id. 21
22
(b) dissolving a first amount and a second amount of the 23
precipitated asphaltenes by gradually and continuously changing the 24
alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent having a 25
solubility parameter at least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane mobile 26
phase solvent; 27
28

7 In many instances in Rogel Motion 3, we are presented with an array of citations,
frequently without explanation. While we have considered the citations, we see no
need to belabor the record with a discussion of them, citing only the first
mentioned citation if we find it persuasive.
Interference 106,064

- 26 -
We are pointed by Schabron to Ex. 2007, page 13, lines 1–8. Paper 53, 10. 1
That section states that: 2
Successive dissolution protocols may involve the step of successively 3
dissolving at least one additional portion (e.g., in addition to that dissolved 4
by the first non-precipitating solvent) of the generated material with at least 5
one additional solvent to generate at least one additional dissolved material 6
solution. Of course, as mentioned, it is typically necessary to separate the 7
existing dissolved material solution from a space contacting the generated 8
material so that the subsequent solvent can then dissolve at least an 9
additional portion of the generated material (at some point, a solvent may 10
dissolve all of the remaining generated material). 11
Id. 12
13
Dr. Lobodin testifies that this disclose dissolving portions of generated 14
material. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64–66; Chart 3. 15
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2007, page 30, lines 2–4 describes the alkane 16
mobile phase solvent limitation. Paper 53, 10. That section states that “[t]hen, as 17
the molecules coated onto the PTFE surface are exposed to solvents of increasing 18
polarity, they are dissolved from the solid surface based on enthalpic solubility 19
parameter interactions, and they go into solution” Ex. 2007, page 30, lines 2–4. 20
Dr. Lobodin testifies that and additional citations disclose generally the use 21
of heptane to precipitate asphaltenes that are then dissolved, in portions, using final 22
mobile phase solvents that are of increasing polarity. Each cyclohexane and 23
toluene:methanol have a solubility parameter that is at least 1MPa0.5 higher than 24
heptane. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64–66; Chart 3. 25
As regards “gradually and continuously” Schabron asserts that Exhibit 2007 26
discloses a step gradient solvent change sequence at Ex. 2007, page 3, lines 9-11 27
and Figures 1, 4, and 5. Paper 53, 11. Dr. Lobodin testifies that flow dynamics 28
would attenuate any such step gradient as it passes through a column so as to 29
Interference 106,064

- 27 -
produce a smooth, non-vertical output curve, regardless of column size or flow 1
rate. He concludes that single step gradients are also “gradually changing” the 2
alkane solvent. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 74–75. As for continuous, Schabron asserts that the 3
’599 provisional application discloses a continuous flow system. Paper 53, 12, 4
citing Ex. 2007, page 14, lines 9-10. 5
(c) monitoring the concentration of eluted fractions from the column; 6
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2007, page 13, lines 13–25 describes 7
monitoring the concentration of eluted fractions. Paper 53, 10. That section states 8
that: 9
In certain embodiments of the inventive technology, a solvent may be 10
established in the vessel so that it contacts the generated material (such 11
contact is observed whenever any dissolution occurs). Whenever dissolution 12
of the generated material occurs, a dissolved material solution is generated. 13
Such solution may be analyzed, as mentioned, perhaps with a detector 22, 14
thereby determining a characteristic (by providing any information 15
whatsoever about the solution of interest). Of course, such analysis may be 16
accomplished through the use of any of a number of detectors employing 17
evaporative light scattering, mass spectrometry, conductivity, 18
oxidation/reduction, refractive index, polarimetry, atomic spectroscopy, 19
optical absorbance, x-ray, ultrasound, and/or fluorescence, as but a few of 20
the available techniques. Such detection may occur as the analyzed 21
substance leaves the vessel, while it is in the vessel, or after it leaves the 22
vessel. A typical setup of a detector may be not dissimilar to that found in 23
some liquid chromatography set-ups, where the detector detects liquid as it 24
elutes from the column (in the case of columnar, analytical embodiments), or 25
as it is drained from a batch type vat (e.g., as in processing embodiment). 26
27
Ex. 2007, page 13, lines 12–25. 28
Dr. Lobodin testifies that this is monitoring the asphaltene containing 29
elution. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64–66 (Chart 3). 30
Interference 106,064

- 28 -
(d) creating a solubility profile of the dissolved asphaltenes in the 1
hydrocarbon-containing material; and 2
3
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2007, Figures 1, 5, and 10 show solubility 4
profiles. Paper 53, 10. Dr. Lobodin testifies that these separation profiles are 5
solubility profiles. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64–65 (Chart 3). 6
(e) determining one or more asphaltene stability parameters of the 7
hydrocarbon-containing material. 8
9
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2007, page 14, line 26 to page 15, line 1 10
describes stability parameters. Paper 53, 11. That section states: 11
But in some applications, more information about the solution of interest 12
may be desired; such additional information may be acquired upon the afore-13
described successive dissolution protocol. Such additional information, 14
whether stemming from a separation profile 21 (e.g., peak values, such as 15
peak heights, peak sharpness, and peak areas; ratios thereof; times until, 16
between or during elution(s), absence of peaks, sharpness of peaks, etc.) or 17
from other data, can be, if required, mathematically manipulated (in a 18
manner well known· in the art) to provide even more information, thereby 19
enabling even greater control over all types of operations. 20
21
Ex. 2007, page 14, line 26 to page 15, line 2. 22
23
More specifically, we find a stability gauge is described, which is the ratio of 24
peak area for the cyclohexane soluble asphaltenes peak to the cyclohexanone or 25
methylene chloride soluble asphaltenes peak area from the on-column precipitation 26
and re-dissolution profile. Id. p. 28, lines 27–28. 27
We turn next to the ’599 Provisional Application (Ex. 2006), and Schabron’s 28
contentions. 29
Rogel Claim 1. A method for determining asphaltene stability 30
in a hydrocarbon-containing material having solvated asphaltenes 31
therein, the method comprising the steps of: 32
Interference 106,064

- 29 -
1
We are pointed by Schabron to Ex. 2006, page 9, lines 9–11. Paper 53, 14. 2
That section states that “[e]mbodiments may include using a continuous flow 3
system to precipitate and redissolve asphaltenes from residuum, oil, and the like to 4
provide in order to determine the asphaltenes and the cyclohexane soluble portion 5
of asphaltenes.” Id. 6
(a) precipitating an amount of the asphaltenes from a liquid 7
sample of the hydrocarbon-containing material with an alkane mobile 8
phase solvent in a column; 9
10
We are pointed by Schabron to Ex. 2006, page 10, lines 17–19. Paper 53, 11
14. That section states that “[o]nce a decalin solution may enter a column with a 12
heptane mobile phase, heptane may displace and may even dilute the decalin, and 13
heptane asphaltenes may precipitate.” Id. 14
15
(b) dissolving a first amount and a second amount of the 16
precipitated asphaltenes by gradually and continuously changing the 17
alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent having a 18
solubility parameter at least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane mobile 19
phase solvent; 20
21
We are pointed by Schabron to Ex. 2006, page 10, lines 20–24. Paper 53, 22
14. That section states that: “A solvent may be switched to cyclohexane. A portion 23
of precipitated asphaltenes that may be soluble in cyclohexane may dissolve, and 24
elute from a column. A solvent may be switched to a toluene:methanol mixture, 25
which may elute the remaining material which may consists of a cyclohexane 26
insoluble portion of the asphaltenes.” Id. 27
Dr. Lobodin testifies that this is dissolving a first and second amount of 28
asphaltenes. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64–65. 29
Interference 106,064

- 30 -
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2006, page 16, lines 7–10 describes the alkane 1
mobile phase solvent limitation. Paper 53, 14. That section states that “[a]n initial 2
solvent may be heptane, and after sample injection, a solvent may be switched to 3
cyclohexane at about 2 minutes. At 12 minutes, a solvent can be switched to 4
toluene:methanol (98:2) (v:v), 10 and at about 15 minutes, a solvent may be 5
switched back to heptane.” Ex. 2006, page 16, lines 7–10. 6
Dr. Lobodin testifies that cyclohexane is the first mobile phase and 7
toluene”methanol is the second mobile phase, each with the appropriate solubility 8
parameter. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64–65. 9
As regards “gradually and continuously” Schabron asserts that Exhibit 2006 10
discloses a step gradient solvent change sequence at Ex. 2006, page 4, lines 9-12; 11
page 7, lines 28-30; and page 11, lines 23-25. Dr. Lobodin testifies that flow 12
dynamics would attenuate any such step gradient as it passes through a column so 13
as to produce a smooth, non-vertical output curve, regardless of column size or 14
flow rate. He concludes that single step gradients are also “gradually changing” 15
the alkane solvent. Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 77, 78, 79. As for continuous, Schabron asserts 16
that the ’599 provisional application discloses a continuous flow system. 17
18
(c) monitoring the concentration of eluted fractions from the column; 19
20
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2006, page 10, line 27 to page 11 line 1 21
describes monitoring the concentration of eluted fractions. Paper 53, 14. That 22
section states that “[a]n optical absorbance detector can be used; however, as 23
discussed above, there may be some variation in the absorptivities between 24
asphaltenes from different residua, pyrolyzed and unpyrolyzed asphaltenes, and the 25
cyclohexane soluble and insoluble portions of asphaltenes. Embodiments may 26
Interference 106,064

- 31 -
include the use of an evaporative light scattering detector ("ELSD").” Ex. 2006, 1
page 10, line 27– page 11, line 1. 2
Dr. Lobodin testifies that ELSD detectors are used to monitor “concentration 3
of eluted fractions from the column.” Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 64 (Chart 3). 4
(d) creating a solubility profile of the dissolved asphaltenes in the 5
hydrocarbon-containing material; and 6
7
Schabron next asserts that Ex. 2006, page 16, lines 12–13 describe creating a 8
solubility profile. Paper 53, 15. That section states that “[a]n example of a 9
separation profile for 10 mg of unpyrolyzed Redwater, B.C. residuum is shown in 10
Figure 6. A separation profile may show no shoulders or perhaps even distorted 11
peaks that may occur with undesired adsorption effects.” Ex. 2006, page 16, 12
lines 12–14. Further, “[i]t may be desirable in embodiments, to establish a single 13
set of conditions to perform a method with a suite of original and pyrolyzed 14
residua generated in the earlier phases of a study. An optical absorption detector 15
separation profiles could be evaluated at about 400 nm. As mentioned earlier, 16
another type of detector that can be used may include a ELSD evaporative light 17
scattering HPLC detector, which may provides more uniform response than an 18
optical absorbance detector.” Id., page 17, line 29–page 18, line 5. 19
Dr. Lobodin testifies that solubility profiles result from data generated by 20
detecting column elutions, and Figure 8 illustrates a solubility profile. Ex. 2016, 21
¶¶ 64–65 (Chart 3). 22
(e) determining one or more asphaltene stability parameters of the 23
hydrocarbon-containing material. 24
25
Schabron next asserts that the provisional application, Ex. 2006, page 1, 26
lines 21–23, describes determining an asphaltene stability parameter. Paper 53, 15. 27
Interference 106,064

- 32 -
That section states “[a] proximity to coke formation can be measured using WRI 1
Coking Indexes, which may be calculations based on flocculation titration data or 2
even a solubility of heptane asphaltenes in cyclohexane.” Ex. 2006, page 1, lines 3
21–23 4
According to Schabron, other various examples of stability parameters are 5
given - coking index based on “solubility of heptane asphaltenes in cyclohexane at 6
p. 5, l. 21-24; determination of “mass fraction of heptane asphaltenes that dissolve 7
in cyclohexane” at p. 6, l. 10-12, and others. 8
We find Schabron’s positions and evidence as to the above elements to be 9
persuasive, prior to considering the opposition. 10
The Opposition 11
Rogel takes issue with the Schabron characterization of the claim, and its 12
broadest reasonable interpretation. Paper 81, 2. More specifically, Rogel urges 13
that Neither Schabron’s ’599 Provisional Application nor Schabron’s ’491 Non- 14
Provisional Application discloses or provides written description or enabling 15
disclosure of the term “gradually and continuously changing the alkane mobile 16
phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent.” Id., citing Exs. 2006, 2007. 17
The reasoning is that Schabron’s ’599 and ’491 Applications disclose 18
stopping a flow of 100% of a first solvent and replacing it with a flow of 100% of a 19
different, second or subsequent solvent—in what Schabron calls a “step gradient.” 20
Dr. Carbognani testifies that during the “gradually and continuously” solvent-21
changing step, the amount of initial alkane mobile phase solvent fed into the 22
column is incrementally decreased while the amount of the final mobile phase 23
solvent fed into the column is incrementally increased, without interruption, 24
resulting in a blend or mixture of the two solvents. Ex. 1012 at ¶ 29. 25
Interference 106,064

- 33 -
He further testifies that in Schabron’s ’599 and ’491 Applications (Exs. 2006 1
and 2007), the solvent is changed using a “step gradient,” in which the flow of the 2
first mobile phase solvent is interrupted and replaced with a second, different final 3
mobile phase solvent. Accordingly, Schabron’s ’599 and ’491 “step-gradient” 4
solvent replacement results in a sudden change of polarity. Ex. 2016, ¶ 80. 5
Rogel urges that even Dr. Lobodin acknowledges that the “gradually and 6
continuously” solvent-changing step required by the Count is different from 7
Schabron’s “step gradient” change: “Rogel discloses a repeated 1% step gradient 8
over 5 minutes while Schabron discloses only a single step gradient (100% 9
change).” Paper 81, 3, citing Ex. 2016, ¶ 80. 10
According to Rogel, Schabron’s ’599 and ’491 Applications (Exs. 2006, 11
2007) disclose only discrete, instantaneous changes by interrupting the flow of one 12
solvent and replacing it with another. Paper 81, 3 and 12–16. Accordingly, Rogel 13
urges that these applications do not establish that the Schabron inventors had 14
possession of the subject matter of the Count. Id. 15
The underlying facts in this situation are, for the most part, not in dispute. 16
Schabron’s example utilizes abrupt solvent input changes (Ex. 2016, ¶ 80 and 89), 17
while Rogel’s examples use solvent changes that are less so (Ex. 1001, ¶ 38). 18
However, the claim which forms the Count reads more broadly than the particular 19
embodiments. The Count uses the term “gradually and continuously” as defined in 20
the Rogel application. 21
To recap that definition as provided for in Rogel’s specification – “The term 22
gradually as used herein shall be understood to mean that the alkane mobile phase 23
solvent is incrementally removed from the column over a period of time by 24
continuously adding a final mobile phase solvent having a solubility parameter at 25
Interference 106,064

- 34 -
least 1 MPa0.5 higher than the alkane mobile phase solvent to the column.” Id. 1
¶ 37. 2
The definition given by Rogel does not give ratios or percentages, time 3
limits, flow rates, or volumes. To the extent the Rogel’s technical witness asserts 4
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims to be so 5
limited, we find that testimony having not sufficient weight to be persuasive when 6
compared to the intrinsic evidence of the definition in the specification. All the 7
Count requires as regards “gradually and continually” is the ongoing addition of a 8
final mobile phase solvent to displace the alkane mobile phase solvent. There is no 9
specific definition given to incremental, which we ascribe its common meaning of 10
occurring in increments, which are the amount of positive or negative change in 11
the value of one or more of a set of variables.8 Whatever the preferred 12
embodiments are, they are not recited in Rogel claim 1 nor the definition of 13
gradually and continuously. 14
Rogel criticizes, among other things, Schabron’s proposed construction of 15
“gradually and continuously.” Paper 81, 7–9. As we relied strictly upon the 16
intrinsic evidence in the Rogel specification, we are unpersuaded by this argument. 17
Rogel also criticizes the experimental data of Dr. Lobodin. Id., 9–11 and 17–20. 18
As we have not found it necessary to rely upon the experimental data of 19
Dr. Lobodin beyond its value to illustrate the change in column outflow as 20
discussed above, we are unpersuaded by this argument. 21

8 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incremental
Interference 106,064

- 35 -
Accordingly, as Schabron has met its burden of showing entitlement to 1
benefit for Count one of the filing date of each the ’599 Application (Aug. 25, 2
2005) and the ’491 Application (August 25, 2006), we grant Schabron Motion 3. 3
4
5
6
7
IV. Judgment 8
9
Rogel filed a Priority Statement that indicated that its earliest corroborated 10
conception coupled with diligence is March 1, 2009, a date after the benefit date 11
now accorded Schabron. Paper 38, 1. This interference is now redeclared to 12
reflect this change in status. Paper 106. 13
Accordingly, as Rogel cannot prevail on priority, this interference shall not 14
proceed to priority. Judgment against Rogel accompanies this decision on 15
motions. Paper 107. 16

Interference 106,064

- 36 -
Attorney for Junior Party Schabron:

Luke Santangelo
Alfred K. Wiedmann Jr.
Nicole Ressue
David S. Kerr
Misha Gregory Macaw
Travis Whitsitt
SANTANGELO LAW OFFICES
lukes@idea-asset.com
alw@idea-asset.com
nicoler@idea-asset.com
dkerr@idea-asset.com
misham@idea-asset.com
travisw@idea-asset.com

W. Todd Baker
Charles L. Gholz
OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
tbaker@oblon.com
cgholz@oblon.com

Attorney for Senior Party Rogel:

Patrick J. Coyne
Clara N. Jimenez
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
patrick.coyne@finnegan.com
clara.jimenez@finnegan.com