Gandhi et al.v.Beckmann et al.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201612877901 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016) Copy Citation BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper No. 124 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD THOMAS BECKMANN and ALEXANDER MASSNER Junior Party (Patent No. 7,584,605) v. HAREN S. GANDHI, JOHN VITO CAVATAIO, ROBERT HENRY HAMMERLE, and YISUN CHENG Senior Party (Application 12/877,901) Patent Interference No. 105,822 (HHB) (Technology Center 1700) Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. JUDGMENT – 37 C.F.R. § 41.127(a) In view of our decisions on motions (Papers 114 and 117) and our decision upon remand from the Federal Circuit in Beckmann v. Gandhi, 646 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Paper 123), it is: 2 ORDERED that Junior Party, Beckmann’s claims 1–4 (corresponding to Count 1) of Beckmann’s involved patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,584,605 will be cancelled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §135(a); FURTHER ORDERED that Gandhi’s claims 3, 4, 6, and 9 (corresponding to Count 1) of Gandhi’s involved application, U.S. Patent Application No. 5 12/877,901, are finally refused pursuant to 35 USC §135(a); FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be made of record in the files of Beckmann’s involved patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,584,605 and Gandhi’s involved application, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/877,901; FURTHER ORDERED that if there is any settlement agreement or related 10 documents which have not been filed, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. §135(c) and 37 C.F.R. §41.205; FURTHER ORDERED that a party seeking judicial review timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 104.2); and 15 FURTHER ORDERED that attention is directed to Biogen Idec MA, Inc., v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648, 654–57 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 20 3 cc (e-mail): Attorneys for Beckmann: Michael H. Jacobs, Esq. Vincent J. Galluzzo, Esq. 5 CROWELL & MORING, LLP Intellectual Property Group MJACOBS@CROWELL.COM VGALLUZZO@CROWELL.COM 10 Attorneys for Gandhi: E. Anthony Figg, Esq. R. Danny Huntington, Esq. ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC 15 EFIGG@RFEM.COM DHUNTINGTON@RFEM.COM BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper No. 123 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD THOMAS BECKMANN and ALEXANDER MASSNER Junior Party (Patent No. 7,584,605) v. HAREN S. GANDHI, JOHN VITO CAVATAIO, ROBERT HENRY HAMMERLE, and YISUN CHENG Senior Party (Application 12/877,901) Patent Interference No. 105,822 (HHB) (Technology Center 1700) Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION – MOTION – 37 C.F.R. §41.125(a) Interference 105,822 2 I. INTRODUCTION This interference is before us on remand from the Federal Circuit. See Beckmann v. Gandhi, 646 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the portion of our earlier decisions (Papers 114 and 117) denying Beckmann’s motion alleging that Gandhi’s claims 3–5, 7, 8, and 10–17 are not supported by a written description (“Beckmann Motion 1”; Paper 30) and 5 granting Gandhi’s motion in part alleging that Beckmann’s claims 3 and 4 of Beckmann’s involved patent (“Beckmann ’605”) are unpatentable in view of prior art (“Gandhi Motion 1”; Paper 26). Specifically, the court affirmed (1) our construction of claims 3 and 4 of Beckmann ’605 as well as (2) our decisions that claims 3 and 4 of Beckmann ’605 10 are unpatentable over cited prior art as presented in Gandhi Motion 1 (Paper 26). Beckmann, 2016 WL 1720502 at 2, 21, 29. In addition, the court agreed with the Board that claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 do not require a “third [exhaust gas] supplying step be controlled in terms of exhaust gas composition and duration.” Id. at 17. However, the court found the Board erred in construing claims 1 and 2 15 of Beckmann ’605 as not requiring the third “supplying” step that is “separate” and “distinct” from the other two exhaust gas supplying steps, i.e., the lean and rich exhaust gas supplying steps. Id. at 3. In particular, the court concluded: Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 require a third exhaust gas supplying step that is separate and distinct from the other two exhaust gas 20 supplying steps. Id. Because the court reversed our construction of Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2, the court vacated our determination that those claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art, and remanded the portion of our decisions (Papers 114 and 117) 25 relating to claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ‘605 for further proceedings. Id. Separately, the court concluded “the Board’s finding that Gandhi ’901 Interference 105,822 3 contains an adequate written description of the ‘minimizing the oxygen content . . . prior to a rich cycle’ limitation of claims 5, 8, 11, and 17 is unsupported by substantial evidence” and, based on that conclusion, vacated that finding and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 3, 28–29. In support of that conclusion, the court noted: 5 [t]he Board did not consider and analyze whether the ’901 application provides an adequate written description of the “prior to” limitation. We therefore vacate its written description decision as to claims 5, 8, 11, and 17. 10 Id. at 28. We limit our consideration to the issues of (1) whether the court’s construction of claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 changes our determination that: (i) Beckmann failed to rebut the presumption under 37 C.F.R. §41.207(c) that claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 are patentable over prior art cited in Beckmann 15 Motion 2 (Paper 42), including Kinugasa ’024 (Ex. 2008), Kinugasa ’241 (Ex. 2009) and Binder ’499 (Ex. 2010), and (ii) claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 are unpatentable over prior art cited in Gandhi Motion 1 (Paper 26), including Gandhi’s grandparent application, US Patent No. 7,332,135 (“Gandhi ’135”) and Surnilla, U.S. Patent No. 6,604,504 (“Surnilla ’504”), an issue that was originally 20 presented in Gandhi Motion 1 (Paper 26) but was not previously addressed by the Board; and (2) whether Beckman has established that Gandhi ’901 does not provide adequate written description support for the “prior to” limitation, i.e., “minimizing the oxygen content . . . prior to a rich cycle” limitation as recited in claims 5, 8, 11, and 17, as presented in Beckmann Motion 1 (Paper 30). 25 Familiarity with the Federal Circuit’s opinion, our earlier opinion (Paper 114) and our earlier opinion on reconsideration (Paper 117) are presumed. We have re-evaluated the parties’ motions in light of the Federal Circuit’s Interference 105,822 4 comments and instructions. Based on the court’s revised construction of claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605, we conclude Beckmann has rebutted the presumption under 37 C.F.R. §41.207(c) that claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ‘605 are not unpatentable over prior art cited in Beckmann Motion 2 (Paper 42). However, we conclude Gandhi has established that Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable 5 over prior art cited in Gandhi Motion 1 (Paper 26). In addition, we also conclude Beckmann has not established in Beckmann Motion 1 (Paper 30) that that the written description of Gandhi ’901 does not provide adequate written description support for the “prior to” limitation, i.e., “minimizing the oxygen content . . . prior to a rich cycle” limitation recited in Gandhi’s claims 5, 8, 11, and 17. 10 II. GANDHI MOTION 1 (PAPER 26) – LACK OF PATENTABILITY OVER PRIOR ART A. Claim 1 of Beckmann ’605 is reproduced below: 15 1. A method for purifying the exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine having an exhaust-gas purification system including a nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter and an SCR [selective catalytic reduction] catalytic converter downstream of the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter, 20 comprising the steps of: supplying the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter with exhaust gas containing an excess of oxidizing constituents; 25 supplying the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter with exhaust gas containing an excess of reducing constituents; and supplying the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter, 30 between the oxidizing constituents supplying step and the reducing constituents supplying step, with an exhaust gas which has a lower content of oxidizing constituents than in the Interference 105,822 5 oxidizing constituents supplying step and a lower content of reducing constituents than in the reducing constituents supplying step, wherein the step between the oxidizing constituents 5 supplying step and the reducing constituents supplying step is terminated at the earliest when the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter is predominantly filled by exhaust gas delivered in [the] step between the oxidizing constituents supplying step and the reducing constituents supplying step. 10 Ex. 1003, 13:15–39. Beckmann’s claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the nitrogen oxygen storage catalytic converter (a.k.a., lean NOx trap or lean NOx absorber) is formed as a parallel arrangement of two lean NOx traps to operate 15 alternately by the use of a switching device that directs exhaust gas into the lean NOx traps. Ex. 1003, 14:2–10. Both claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 recite three steps: (1) supplying . . . exhaust gas containing an excess of oxidizing constituents (i.e., lean exhaust gas); (2) supplying . . . exhaust gas containing an excess of reducing constituents (i.e., 20 rich exhaust gas); and (3) during the period between those two steps, supplying . . . exhaust gas that has a lower content of oxidizing constituents than in the oxidizing step and a lower content of reducing constituents than in the reducing step (e.g., transitional exhaust gas). The intermediate transitional step (i.e., third supplying step) ends at the earliest when the catalytic converter is filled by exhaust gas 25 delivered during that step. The Federal Circuit construed the third supplying step recited in Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 as “a third exhaust gas supplying step that is separate and distinct from the other two exhaust gas supplying steps,” Beckmann v. Gandhi, 646 Fed. Appx. 950, 961. We turn to whether Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 would 30 Interference 105,822 6 have been obvious over the cited prior art, including Gandhi ’135, Surnilla ’504 and Schenk. B. Gandhi, as the movant, bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ‘605 are unpatentable over prior art. 5 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(b) and 41.208(b); see also Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541–42 (Fed. Cir. 1994). C. Obviousness is determined on the basis of underlying factual inquiries, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the 10 claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the claimed subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the 15 time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (emphasis added). However, a conclusion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of 20 obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). D. Gandhi contends that (1) Beckmann’s claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gandhi ’135 and Surnilla ’504, and (2) Beckmann’s claim 2 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over 25 Interference 105,822 7 Gandhi ’135, Surnilla ’504, and Schenk1 (Exhibit 1006). Gandhi Motion 1, Paper 26, 2–3, 9–12. To support its contention, Gandhi proffers detailed explanations and analyses regarding how each element of claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 is met or is rendered obvious by Gandhi ’135 and Surnilla ’504, as set forth in the claim charts attached as APPENDIX 3 – Attachment C. Paper 42, 5 10–11 & APPENDIX 3 (claim charts). Gandhi also relies upon a Declaration of Dr. Michael Harold. Ex. 1001. Beckmann Claim 1 In particular, Gandhi contends that Gandhi ’135 (Ex. 1005) discloses all elements of Beckmann’s claim 1, except for the third supplying step of a 10 transitional exhaust gas having an intermediate exhaust gas composition. However, such a feature is known in the art as disclosed by Surnilla ’504. As such, the combination of Gandhi ’135 and Surnilla ’504 is said to disclose and render “obvious” the invention of Beckmann’s claim 1. Paper 26, 2–3, 9–11. Gandhi ’135 discloses a method of purifying an exhaust gas using a lean 15 NOx trap (i.e., lean NOx absorber or nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter of Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2) and SCR catalyst located downstream of the lean NOx trap. Ex. 1005, Abstract, Fig. 2 (as reproduced below). 1 Schenk et al., “High Efficiency NOx and PM Exhaust Emission Control for Heavy-Duty On-Highway Diesel Engines,” SAE Technical Paper Series, SAE 2001-01-1351, published March 5, 2001, and presented at SAE World Congress on March 5–8, 2001 (Ex. 1006). Interference 105,822 8 Gandhi ’135 further discloses: (1) supplying the lean NOx trap with a lean exhaust gas (i.e., exhaust gas containing an excess of oxidizing constituents) to trap NOx (Ex. 1005, 5:31–33); (2) supplying the lean NOx trap with a rich exhaust gas (i.e., an exhaust gas containing an excess of reducing constituents) to purge NOx from the trap (Ex. 1005, 5:34–39); (3) cyclical lean and rich operations, and 5 transitioning there between as reproduced in Fig. 1a below. (Ex. 1005, 1:38–43, 1:66–2:2). As shown in Gandhi’s Figure 1a, the transition from lean to rich conditions is illustrated below: 10 Ex. 1005, p. 3. Gandhi’s Figure 1a shows the lean NOx trap operating in lean and rich conditions. Ex. 1005, 1:38–39. In particular, the lean NOx trap functions: (1) to absorb NOx when the engine is running under lean conditions, and (2) to purge the NOx absorbed by the lean NOx trap during the lean cycle, when the engine is 15 running under rich conditions. Ex. 1005, 1:39–52. According to Gandhi ’135, “[t]he reduction caused during the rich cycle purges the lean NOx [trap], and the lean NOx [trap] is then immediately available for the next lean NOx storage/rich NOx reduction cycle.” Id. Interference 105,822 9 Surnilla ’504 discloses the third supplying step of a transitional exhaust gas having an intermediate gas composition. Paper 26, 2:17–22. Specifically, Surnilla ’504 teaches an improvement to the operation of “lean burn” internal combustion engines. Ex. 1007, 1:9–12. Surnilla ’504 notes that prior engine emission control systems used devices such as a three-way catalytic converter to remove and store 5 NOx from the exhaust generated when the engine runs with a lean air-fuel ratio. Ex. 1007, 1:29–34. Because the storage device becomes filled with NOx and can no longer remove NOx from the exhaust, it is necessary to purge the filled device. Ex. 1007, 1: 34–54. Purging is done by transitioning the engine to a stoichiometric or rich air-fuel ratio. Ex. 1007, 1:35–40. The prior emissions systems controlled 10 the air-fuel ratio to cycle between a first air-fuel ratio—lean (storage) conditions— and a second air-fuel ratio—stoichiometric/rich (purging) conditions. Ex. 1007, 1:40–54. Surnilla ’504 also teaches that it was known that during the transition between storage and purging conditions, there will likely be increased levels of 15 NOx in the tailpipe emissions. Ex. 1007, 2:6–10. Surnilla’s invention addresses the problem of increased NOx emissions during the transition period. Ex. 1007, 2:32–40. Surnilla’s system sequentially steps the air-fuel mixture between the first and second air-fuel ratios and vice versa. Ex. 1007, 2:43–62. The sequential stepping is said to avoid excessive NOx emissions during the transitions between 20 the first and second (lean and stoichiometric). Ex. 1007, 2:62–3:2. In the case of embodiments including a NOx storage device, the air-fuel ratio is set to a value rich compared to the stoichiometric value to purge the NOx storage trap. Ex. 1007, 3:37–46. Thus, in a preferred embodiment the air-fuel ratio is stepped to a rich- value to begin the NOx purge. Ex. 1007, 3:46–50. Upon completion of the purge 25 event, the air-fuel ratio is returned, “in a ‘step’ fashion, to a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio.” Ex. 1007, 3:55–58. As further noted by Surnilla ’504, the stepping method Interference 105,822 10 is preferably employed when transitioning from a lean air-fuel ratio to an enriched air-fuel ratio suitable for purging NOx stored in the NOx trap 34 (Figure 1). Ex. 1007, 6:8–12; Fig. 1. The sequence of stepped enrichment of the air-fuel ratio submitted to the NOx trap 34 from a “lean” value of 18 to a “rich” value of 12 is illustrated in Figure 4. Ex. 1007, 6:16–20. The stoichiometric value is said to be 5 14.65. Ex. 1007, 4:56–61. We reproduce Surnilla’s Figure 4 below. For the reasons detailed above, we find that Surnilla ’504 teaches, as separate and distinct steps supplying the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter, between 10 the oxidizing constituents supplying step and the reducing constituents supplying step, with an exhaust gas which has a lower content of oxidizing constituents than in the oxidizing constituents supplying step and a lower content of reducing constituents than in the reducing constituents supplying step. 15 As shown in Surnilla’s Figure 4, the exhaust gas supplied to the NOx storage converter 34 is stepped from a lean value of 18 to a NOx purging rich value of 12. The intermediate steps have values that are less lean, i.e., have a lower content of oxidizing constituents than the lean value of 18, and are less rich, i.e., have a lower 20 content of reducing constituents than the rich value of 12. As noted above, the Interference 105,822 11 composition of the exhaust with an air-fuel ratio of 12 is said to be suitable for purging NOx storage converter 34. Ex. 1007, 6:8–20. In our view, it would have been obvious to incorporate Surnilla’s stepped transition technique in the process and system taught by Gandhi ‘135 to achieve the benefits of reduced NOx emissions during the lean to rich transition as taught 5 by Surnilla ’504. According to Dr. Harold’s testimony, both Gandhi ’135 and Surnilla ’504 are directed to reducing NOx emissions. Ex. 1001, ¶ 34. Gandhi ’135 achieves reductions by arranging a lean NOx trap and SCR catalyst and by alternating lean and rich operations. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Surnilla ’504 achieves reductions in NOx emissions by controlling the transitions from lean to rich in a 10 step-wise manner with steps that are “separate” and “distinct” from the lean and rich operations. Ex. 1007, 2:43–3:5. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the known stepping transition disclosed in Surnilla ’504 in the system disclosed in Gandhi ’135 to further reduce NOx emissions as of October 25, 2003. Such a combination would have been obvious 15 to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of October 25, 2003 because it is merely the use of a known technique to improve a similar method in a predictable way. Ex. 1001 ¶ 51. Beckmann argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the Gandhi ‘135 system by adding Surnilla’s stepping technique. Beckmann Opposition 1 20 (Paper 47), 11–14. According to Beckmann, the composition supplied to Surnilla’s NOx catalytic converter is unknown. Paper 47, 13:1–15. Relying on Dr. Kröcher’s testimony, Beckmann argues that, as shown in Surnilla’s Figure 1, the exhaust gas passes through unidentified emission control element 32 prior to reaching NOx trap 34. Paper 47, 14:3–6. Because the device 32 is not identified, 25 one skilled in the art would not have been able to determine the exhaust gas composition supplied to NOx trap 34 based upon the air-fuel ratios from the engine. Interference 105,822 12 Beckmann also directs us to the cross examination testimony of Gandhi’s expert, Dr. Harold. Beckmann represents that Dr. Harold testified to the effect that the content of the exhaust gas leaving Surnilla’s emission control device 32 and entering NOx trap 34, cannot be known without the specific details of device 32. Paper 47, 12:13–14:12. 5 We are not convinced by Beckmann’s argument and relied upon evidence. Notwithstanding the presence or absence of an upstream device, Surnilla ’504 expressly ties the stepped lean to rich transition of the engine directly to the character of the exhaust composition (i.e., rich or lean) entering the downstream NOx trap and the activities within in the NOx trap: 10 In accordance with another feature of the invention, where the invention is used in combination with a downstream device that stores a selected exhaust gas constituent, such as NOx, when the engine's air-fuel ratio is lean and releases previously-stored selected constituent when the engine is operated at an air-fuel 15 ratio at or rich of the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, the method preferably includes enriching the air-fuel mixture to a third air- fuel mixture supplied to at least one cylinder for a predetermined time, whereupon the trap is purged of stored amounts of the selected constituent. In a preferred embodiment, the air-fuel 20 mixture supplied to the last set of cylinders being stepped from a lean air-fuel ratio to a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is, instead, immediately stepped to a rich air-fuel ratio to begin the purge event. Where desired, the air-fuel mixture supplied to at least one other set of cylinders, each already operating with a 25 stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, is simultaneously stepped to the rich air-fuel ratio. Upon completion of the purge event, the enriched air-fuel mixture supplied to each enriched set of cylinders is returned, again in a “step” fashion, to a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. 30 Ex. 1007, 3:37–57. Surnilla ’504 also describes using the stepped engine transition specifically with respect to NOx trap 34 as shown in Surnilla’s Figure 1: Interference 105,822 13 In accordance with another feature of the invention, the method is preferably also employed when transitioning from a lean engine operating condition to an enriched engine operating condition suitable for “purging” NOx stored in the trap 34, because of the trap's reduced instantaneous efficiency (i.e., the 5 reduced instantaneous NOx -absorption rate) and/or a lack of available NOx-storage capacity in the trap 34 which triggered the need for the purge in the first instance. Still further, the last set of cylinders 18 to be stepped to stoichiometric operation is preferably immediately stepped through stoichiometric operation 10 to rich operation, thereby immediately commencing the purge event, as illustrated in FIG. 4. Ex. 1007, 6:8–20. Thus, Surnilla ’504 teaches that the exhaust gas entering the NOx trap 34 is lean (i.e. includes an excess of oxidizing constituents) necessary for 15 storing NOx and is transitioned through intermediate steps to a rich composition (i.e., one that includes an excess of reducing constituents) necessary to purge the NOx trap. As taught by Surnilla ’504, it is the step-wise transition from lean to reach that achieves Surnilla’s goal of avoiding increased levels of NOx emissions from the NOx trap and in the tailpipe emissions during the lean to rich transition. 20 Ex. 1007, 2:32–40. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of device 32, the exhaust gas provided to NOx trap 34 is cycled between lean (storage) and rich (purging) values Beckmann also relies on Dr. Kocher’s testimony to argue that there was no motivation to combine Surnilla’s teachings with those of Gandhi ‘135. Beckmann 25 Opposition 1, Paper 47, 14:7–12. According to Beckmann, Surnilla ’504 does not suggest that its “complex” transitioning technique would be useful in a system that uses a combination of a lean NOx trap and an SCR catalyst. Beckmann Opposition 1, Paper 47, 14:7–12. We are not persuaded by Beckmann’s argument. Both the Gandhi ’135 and 30 the Surnilla ’504 addresses the problem, inter alia, of NOx getting past the NOx Interference 105,822 14 trap and becoming part of the tailpipe emissions. Ex. 1005, 1:60–2:7; Ex. 1007, 2:32–40. While both documents address this same goal or reducing those emissions, neither’s solution is said to totally eliminate NOx tailpipe emissions. Gandhi ’135 says the use of a NOx trap in conjunction with an SCR-catalyst increases the overall conversion of NOx from 55% to 80%. Ex. 1005, 6:18–35. 5 Surnilla ’504 says the invention is “characterized by reduced levels of a selected engine-generated exhaust gas constituent, such as NOx, whereby overall tailpipe emissions of a selected exhaust gas constituent may be advantageously further reduced.” Ex. 1007, 2:32–40 (emphasis added). In light of the requirements to minimize NOx emissions (see Ex. 1005, 2:44–47) one having ordinary skill in the 10 art would have had ample reason to incorporate Surnilla’s technique of reducing NOx emissions during the lean to reach transition with Gandhi’s technique to maximize NOx reduction. Beckmann Claim 2 Beckmann’s claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the additional 15 requirement of a parallel arrangement of two NOx storage catalytic converters that are operated alternatively by a switching device selective that directs the exhaust gas between the two converters. We reproduce Beckmann’s claim 2 in the margin. Gandhi’s motion relies on the combination of Gandhi ’135, Surnilla ’504 and the Schenk publication (Ex. 1006). Gandhi Motion 1, Paper 26, 11:3–8; 12:3–20 6. Schenk shows that the system of alternately using two parallel NOx storage converters and switching between them was a technique known to those working in the art to effectively reduce NOx emission. Schenk’s system is described in the Abstract and shown in Schenk’s Figure 1: 25 A diesel exhaust emission control system consisting of catalyzed diesel particulate filters and NOx adsorber catalysts arranged in a dual-path configuration was developed and evaluated using a Interference 105,822 15 1999-specification 5.9 liter medium-heavy-duty diesel engine. NOx adsorber regeneration was accomplished via a secondary exhaust fuel injection system. An alternating restriction of the exhaust flow between the two flow paths allowed injection and adsorber regeneration to occur under very low space velocity 5 conditions. NOx and PM reductions in excess of 90% were observed over a broad range of steady-state operating conditions and over the hot-start HDDE-FTP transient cycle. Ex. 1006, p. 4 (emphasis added). 10 Ex. 1006, Figure 1, p. 5. Schenk further teaches that during operation “[one] half of the exhaust system had its exhaust flow restricted to just a small fraction (<5%) of the total flow and operated in a regeneration mode.” Ex. 1006, 5, 2nd column. In our view to employ Schenck’s known system and technique for reducing NOx emissions in conjunction with the other known systems and techniques 15 described by Gandhi ’135 and Surnilla ’504 would have been obvious. The subject matter of Beckmann’s claim 2 simply arranges known elements with each preforming its known function and provides no more than would be expected from Interference 105,822 16 the arrangement. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Beckmann argues that its claim 2 requires “that the parallel nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converters ‘are operated alternately by switching of a switching device arranged to selectively direct exhaust gas into said elements.’” Beckmann 5 Opposition 1, Paper 47, 15:12–14. According to Beckmann, Schenk (Ex. 1006) does not teach alternate switching because in Schenk’s system, while one branch is fully opened, the other is only “partially” blocked. Beckmann argues: “that the disclosed restriction is not a total restriction of the exhaust gas so that the adsorbers are operated alternatively, but rather a partial restriction that requires the exhaust 10 gas to be provided to both NOx adsorbers at all times.” Beckmann Opposition 1, Paper 47, 16:2–4. We are not convinced by Beckmann’s argument. We discern no basis to limit “operated alternately by switching of a switching device arranged to selectively direct exhaust gas into said elements” in the way urged by Beckmann. 15 Beckmann’s claim 2 does not expressly require fully blocking the passages. Instead, Beckmann’s claim 2 simply recites a parallel arrangement of two lean NOx traps to operate alternately by the use of a switching device that directs exhaust gas into the lean NOx traps. Ex. 1003, 14:2–10. In any event, the argument is simply inconsistent with Beckmann’s specification which teaches partially blocking one of 20 the parallel systems. Beckmann describes that in the use of a parallel arrangement of two NOx storage catalytic converters shown schematically in Fig. 3, the exhaust gas can be supplied “substantially” to either of the parallel exhausts: The embodiment illustrated in FIG. 3 differs from that shown in FIG. 1 by virtue of the fact that the nitrogen oxide storage 25 catalytic converter 4 is designed as a parallel arrangement of a first nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter element 4a and a second nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter element 4b. Interference 105,822 17 Furthermore, there is a switching device 6 which enables the exhaust-gas stream supplied to it through the exhaust pipe 3 to be distributed as desired between the nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter elements 4a, 4b via the exhaust pipe branches 3a and 3b. It is preferable for the switching device 6. It is 5 preferable for the switching device 6 to be designed as a switching valve, in such a way that the exhaust gas can be supplied substantially either to the first nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter element 4a or to the second nitrogen oxide storage catalytic converter element 4b. 10 Ex. 1003, 10:9–23 (emphasis added). See also Ex. 1003, 10:59–11:11 (exhaust gas predominately supplied) and 11:44–50 (exhaust gas primarily supplied). Beckmann’s argument is inconsistent with its own specification. In the absence of express claim language requiring total blockage, we conclude that the language of Beckmann’s claim 2 requiring the parallel nitrogen oxide storage catalytic 15 converters “are operated alternately by switching of a switching device arranged to selectively direct exhaust gas into said elements” does not require that total blocking of either exhaust path. We conclude, therefore, that the subject matter of Beckmann’s claim 2 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Gandhi ’135, Surnilla 20 ’504 and Schenk (Ex. 1006). For these reasons, we are persuaded that Gandhi has established that Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Gandhi ’135, Surnilla ’504, and Schenk (Ex. 1006). 25 III. BECKMANN MOTION 2 (PAPER 42) – CROSS-APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR ART A. In the decision on motions (Paper 114), we found Beckmann established that Gandhi’s claims 3, 4, 6, and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 30 Interference 105,822 18 103(a) based on prior art, including Kinugasa ’024 (Ex. 2008), Kinugasa ’241 (Ex. 2009) and Binder ’499 (Ex. 2010) as presented in Beckmann Motion 2 (Paper 42).2 Paper 114, 41:21–25. In addition, we also found Beckmann rebutted the presumption under 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(c) that Beckmann’s claims 3 and 4 are not unpatentable over the same prior art asserted against Gandhi’s claims 3, 4, 6, and 5 9, because the asserted prior art does not teach or suggest a “third [exhaust gas] supplying step” that is controlled in terms of exhaust gas composition and duration, as recited by Beckmann’s claims 3 and 4. Paper 114, 43:25–44:2. However, we found Beckmann failed to rebut the presumption under 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(c) that Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over the same 10 prior art asserted against Gandhi’s claims 3, 4, 6, and 9. As such, we found Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over the same cited prior art. Paper 114, 53. B. In light of the Federal Circuit’s construction of the third supplying step 15 recited in claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605, i.e., “a third exhaust gas supplying step that is separate and distinct from the lean and rich exhaust gas supplying steps” but that “third [exhaust gas] supplying step [need not] be controlled in terms of exhaust gas composition and duration,” we revisit the issue of whether Beckmann has rebutted the presumption under 37 C.F.R. §41.207(c) that claims 1 20 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 should be patentable over the same prior art asserted by Beckmann against Gandhi’s claims. We are persuaded by Beckmann’s arguments that the asserted prior art, including Kinugasa ’024 (Ex. 2008), Kinugasa ’241 (Ex. 2009), and Binder ’499 (Ex. 2010) does not anticipate or render obvious claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605. Paper 42, 14:19–15:17. 25 2 That decision was not appealed to the Federal Circuit and, as such, remains final. Interference 105,822 19 Kinugasa ʼ241 (Exhibit 2009) Kinugasa ʼ241 discloses an exhaust gas purification system, shown in Figure 1, for an internal combustion engine capable of removing NOx in the exhaust gas of a lean burn engine with high efficiency. Ex. 2009, 1:6–12; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 52–70. Figure 1 of Kinugasa ʼ241 is reproduced below: 5 As shown in Figure 1 of Kinugasa ’241, the exhaust gas purification system includes in the direction of the exhaust gas flow from engine 1, (1) a NOx absorbent 3 and (2) a denitrating catalyst 7. The NOx absorbent 3 is arranged to receive alternate supplies of lean and rich exhaust gases from the engine 1, and is 10 also known as the NOx catalytic converter of Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2. Ex. 2009, 13:28–30, 35–44. The denitrating catalyst 7 is arranged downstream of the NOx absorbent 3, and is also known as the SCR [selective catalytic reduction] catalytic converter of Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2. Ex. 2009, Fig. 1; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 47–70. 15 The overall operation of the arrangement of Figure 1 of Kinugasa ’241 is illustrated in Figure 3, a relevant portion of which is reproduced below. Interference 105,822 20 As shown in Figure 3 of Kinugasa ’241, the curve (A) illustrates that during time period I, cylinders #2 – #4 of engine 1 produce lean exhaust gas, which is supplied to NOx absorbent 3 (NOx catalytic converter), via first exhaust passage 142. Ex. 2009, 13:28–30. When time period I ends and during time period II, 5 cylinders #2 – #4 of engine 1 produce rich exhaust gas NOx absorbent 3 (NOx catalytic converter). Ex. 2009, 13:35–40. As illustrated by the curve during time period IIa in section (B) of Figure 3, the transition from lean condition to rich condition causes a NOx spike at the outlet of NOx absorbent 3 (NOx catalytic converter) during the rich mode. Ex. 2009, 13:35–50. 10 Because a NOx spike of Kinugasa ’241 occurs during the transition in which the NOx absorbent 3 (NOx catalytic converter) transitions from lean to rich condition and during the rich mode, we are persuaded that Kinugasa ʼ241 does not teach or suggest a third [exhaust gas] supplying step that is separate and distinct from the rich and lean exhaust gas supplying steps, as recited in Beckmann’s 15 claims 1 and 2. Paper 42, 15:7–17. Kinugasa ʼ024 (Exhibit 2008) Kinugasa ʼ024 also discloses a number of embodiments for an exhaust-gas purification system including at least two of (1) a three-way catalyst; (2) a NOx absorbing-reducing catalyst; and (3) an NH3 adsorbing-denitrating catalyst, as 20 shown, for example, in Figure 26. Ex. 2008. A first set of embodiments is disclosed in which a three-way catalyst is used to generate ammonia and a second Interference 105,822 21 set of embodiments in which a NOx absorbing-reducing catalyst is used to generate ammonia. Ex. 2008, 5:23–25, 32–36 Figure 26 of Kinugasa ’024 shows such a system as reproduced below. As shown in Figure 26 of Kinugasa ’024, a pair of NOx absorbing-reducing 5 catalysts 70a, 70b are connected to exhaust manifolds 133a, 133b with a NH3 adsorbing-denitrating catalyst 9 connected downstream. Ex. 2008, 29:48–52; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 85, 86, 89. According to Kinugasa ’024, the exhaust-gas purification system is supplied with alternating lean and rich exhaust gases; in the rich mode, NOx and ammonia are released from the NOx absorbing-reducing catalysts. Ex. 10 2008, 19:22–26, 28:1–8, 29:54–56. Like Kinugasa ʼ241, we are persuaded that Kinugasa ’024 does not teach or suggest a third supplying step that is separate and distinct from the rich and lean exhaust gas supplying steps, as recited in Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2. Binder ʼ499 (Exhibit 2010) 15 Binder ʼ499 discloses a method for purifying exhaust gas from engine 1 that involves supplying a lean exhaust gas followed by a rich exhaust gas to a zoned catalyst component comprising a NOx catalytic converter 7 and a downstream SCR [selective catalytic reduction] catalytic converter 8. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 22, 24, Fig. 1. Interference 105,822 22 Binder ʼ499 discloses alternately supplying a NOx catalytic converter with lean and rich exhaust gases and switching from the lean burn mode to the rich burn mode to regenerate the NOx catalytic converter 7. Ex. 2010 ¶ 24. Like Kinugasa ʼ241 and Kinugasa ’024, we are persuaded that Binder ʼ499 does not teach or suggest a third supplying step that is separate and distinct from 5 the rich and lean exhaust gas supplying steps, as recited in Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2. C. Gandhi argues that Beckmann’s claim 1 “simply requires that, between lean and rich operations, the Lean NOx Trap be supplied with an exhaust gas having 10 less oxidizing constituents than lean operations and less reducing constituents than rich conditions, and that this supplying step terminate at the earliest when the Lean NOx Trap is predominantly full of exhaust gas supplied during this step.” Gandhi Opposition 2, Paper 51, 7:19–23. Assuming the correctness of that statement, we fail to see the relevance of this argument to the teachings of Kinugasa ’241, 15 Kinugasa ’024 or Binder ’499. Gandhi does not explain where such a step between the lean and rich operations is disclosed in those references or, most importantly, would be considered to be a step separate and distinct from the lean and rich steps. To the extent that it might be argued that, in the systems taught by each of the references, Beckmann’s third supplying step is inherently present as the transition 20 between the lean and rich supplying steps taught in those references, we disagree. It is likely that during the transition between supplying the lean and rich exhaust gas in those systems that a composition between the two is supplied. In our view, such a minimal transition phase would not meet the requirement that the third supplying step be “separate and distinct” from the lean and rich supplying steps. 25 Rather, the transition between lean and rich is integral to the lean and rich steps. Interference 105,822 23 Absent some teaching, suggestion, motivation or reasoning why one ordinarily skilled in the art would have modified the systems of the three references by adding the separate and distinct intermediate supplying step, we see no basis for concluding that the subject matter of Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious from the references cited against Gandhi’s claims. Thus, 5 based upon the arguments of the parties and on the record before us, the presumption of 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(c) is not applicable against Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2. D. Because the asserted prior art fails to teach or suggest a third supplying step 10 that is separate and distinct from the rich and lean exhaust gas supplying steps in the manner recited in Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2, we conclude that the presumption of 37 C.F.R. §41.207(c) does not apply against claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 and (2) Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 are not unpatentable over Kinugasa ’024 (Ex. 2008), Kinugasa ’241 (Ex. 2009), and Binder ’499 (Ex. 2010). 15 IV. BECKMANN MOTION 1 (PAPER 30) – LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION A. In its opinion, the court concluded “the Board’s finding that the ’901 20 application contains an adequate written description of the ‘minimizing the oxygen content . . . prior to a rich cycle’ limitation of claims 5, 8, 11, and 17 is unsupported by substantial evidence” and, based on that conclusion, vacated that finding and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 3, 28–29. In support of that conclusion, the court noted: 25 [t]he Board did not consider and analyze whether the ’901 application provides an adequate written description of the “prior to” limitation. We therefore vacate its written description Interference 105,822 24 decision as to claims 5, 8, 11, and 17. Id. at 28. For purposes of this decision, we limit our consideration to the issue of whether Beckman has established that Gandhi ’901 does not provide adequate 5 written description support for the “prior to” limitation, i.e., “minimizing the oxygen content . . . prior to a rich cycle” limitation as recited in Gandhi’s claims 5, 8, 11, and 17. B. Gandhi’s claim 5 is representative of the “prior to” claims and recites: 10 A method for reducing pollutants in the exhaust gas of an engine having a system including a nitrogen oxide adsorber and a NH3-SCR catalyst downstream of the nitrogen oxide adsorber, comprising the steps of: 15 supplying the nitrogen oxide adsorber with exhaust gas while the engine operates under lean conditions, wherein the exhaust gas is a lean exhaust gas; transitioning the engine operations from lean to rich conditions; 20 supplying the nitrogen oxide absorber with exhaust gas during said transitioning; minimizing the oxygen content of the nitrogen oxide absorber 25 prior to rich conditions to facilitate the reduction of NOx to NH3; completing the transition from lean to rich conditions; and supplying the nitrogen oxide absorber with exhaust gas while the 30 engine operates under rich conditions, wherein the exhaust gas is a rich exhaust gas. Gandhi Clean Copy of Claims, Paper 12, Claim 5, 4–5. Interference 105,822 25 In all Gandhi’s claims 5, 8, 11, and 17, the “prior to” language imposes a temporal requirement that “minimizing the oxygen content” take place “prior to” rich conditions as part of the claimed method. C. Beckmann, as the movant, bears the burden of proving by a preponderance 5 of the evidence that Gandhi’s claims 5, 8, 11, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description in the original specification of Gandhi ‘901. 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(b) and 41.208(b); see also Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541–42 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In order to satisfy its burden, Beckmann must prove that Gandhi’s written 10 description does not convey with reasonable clarity to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the Gandhi inventors had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the patent application. See Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods. Inc., 424 F.3d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2005). D. 15 In its Motion 1, Beckmann argued that Gandhi claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 were not supported by the written description of Gandhi’s ‘901 application because those claims require: “the minimization the oxygen content in the NOx catalytic converter prior to the rich cycle.” 20 Beckmann Motion 1, 15:18–19 (emphasis added). Each of claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 require minimizing the oxygen content of the NOx trap. Gandhi Clean Copy of Claims, Paper 12, 4–8. However, as noted by the Federal Circuit, only claims 5, 8, 11 and 17 include the temporal “prior to” requirement. We refer to those claims as “the temporal claims.” 25 In our original opinion we held that Beckmann’s argument and Dr. Kröcher’s testimony did not provide: Interference 105,822 26 an adequate reason as to why the structures disclosed, for example, in Gandhi’s Figures 2, 4a-4c, 7a-7c and 9, and their accompanying text, including ¶[0041], do not convey to a person skilled in the art the minimization of the oxygen content in the NOx catalytic converter (lean NOx trap) prior to the rich cycle, as 5 described in Gandhi’s disclosure. Ex. 2001, Claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17, ¶[0041]. Paper 114, 23:24–29. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the 10 Board’s written description finding regarding non-temporal claims 7, 10 and 16, but substantial evidence did not support the temporal claims. Beckman v. Gandhi, 646 Fed. Appx. 950, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In light of the Court’s remand, we have again reviewed Beckmann’s motion, focusing on the temporal claims. 15 In its motion, Beckmann did not distinguish between Gandhi’s temporal claims and non-temporal claims 7, 10, and 16. Beckmann’s motion only argues that Gandhi’s written description lacked disclosure of the minimization of the oxygen content in the NOx converter. Thus Beckmann argued: The only possible disclosure in the Gandhi [‘9013] application 20 related to the minimization of oxygen concerns the optimization of the NOx catalytic converter “for ammonia generation by removing oxygen storage capacity (OSC)” and to “minimize OSC to lessen fuel penalty.” 25 3 Beckmann’s Motion 1 (Paper 26) addressed the written description of Gandhi’s grandparent Application 10/065,470. As we noted in our original decision, the proper application for evaluating adequate written description for the claimed subject matter is Gandhi’s involved ‘901 application. Because the written description of Gandhi’s involved application and those of its parent and grandparent applications appeared to be identical, we treated the motion as addressing the ‘901 application. Paper 114, 8:23 – 9:7. We do here also. Interference 105,822 27 Beckmann Motion 1, Paper 30, 15:22–24. Relying on Dr. Kröcher’s testimony Beckmann argued that the minimization of oxygen content would require physically changing the NOx catalytic converter which could not occur during the operation of the system: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that 5 the oxygen storage capacity referred to by Gandhi is a physical characteristic of the NOx catalytic converter, and that changing the oxygen storage capacity would require physical modifications to the NOx catalytic converter. This physical modification cannot occur while the exhaust gas purification 10 system is operating, but instead must be performed before the system is installed in a vehicle. Thus, because Gandhi’s [‘901] application only contemplates minimization of oxygen content that can occur through a physical modification and not during operation of the engine, Dr. Krӧcher confirms that Claims 5, 7, 15 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 lack adequate written disclosure. Beckmann Motion 1, Paper 30, 16:1–10 (citations to Kröcher’s testimony, Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 107–116, 124, and 125 excluded). Beckmann’s motion treated all the “minimizing the oxide content” claims as a single group and did not argue or direct us to evidence attempting to establish 20 that the claims including the “prior to” limitation—separate from the minimization of oxygen content requirement—was not described. Beckmann Motion 1, Paper 30, 15:16–16:10. Beckmann’s motion, at best, provides only an unsubstantiated allegation that the “prior to” limitation of Gandhi’s temporal claims is not supported by the written description of the Gandhi ’901 application. 25 Beckmann, as the moving party, bears the burden of providing a showing supported by appropriate evidence that if unrebutted would justify finding that the “prior to” limitations were not supported. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b). Because Beckmann has neither provided argument nor directed us to evidence related to the lack of a description of the temporal limitation—other than that held to be 30 Interference 105,822 28 insufficient with respect to minimizing the oxide content—Beckmann has failed to meet its burden of establishing entitlement to a holding that the “prior to” limitations of claims 5, 8, 11, and 17 are not adequately supported. In the context of this inter partes proceeding, it is not our province to review Gandhi’s written description based upon the mere allegation that a limitation is not 5 supported. We cannot make factual findings interpreting Gandhi’s written description based upon our own expertise. Brand v. Miller, 487 F3d 862, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“in the context of a contested case, it is impermissible for the Board to base its factual findings on its expertise, rather than on evidence in the record”). Rather, it is Beckmann’s burden to explain why the limitation lacks support. 10 Beckman has not provided an explanation or directed us to evidence that would establish that the “prior to” limitation of the temporal claims lacks written description support. We deny Beckmann’s Motion 1 as to Gandhi’s claims 5, 8, 11, and 17. V. HOLDINGS Based on the court’s revised construction of Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2, and 15 after consideration of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we conclude Beckmann has rebutted the presumption under 37 C.F.R. §41.207(c) that claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ‘605 are not unpatentable over prior art cited in Beckmann Motion 2 (Paper 42). We also conclude Gandhi has established that Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over prior art cited in Gandhi 20 Motion 1 (Paper 26). Gandhi Motion 1 (Paper 26) is GRANTED as to Beckmann’s claims 1 and 2. We also conclude Beckmann has failed to prove that Gandhi’s claims 5, 8, 11, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lacking a written description support. Beckmann Motion (Paper 30) is DENIED. 25 Interference 105,822 29 Because we hold that claims 1 and 2 of Beckmann ’605 are unpatentable over the art cited in Gandhi Motion 1 (Paper 26), and because the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 3 and 4 of Beckmann ’605 are unpatentable, Beckmann has no patentable claims in the interference. Gandhi’s remaining claims 5, 7, 8, and 10–17 have not been shown to be unpatentable. 5 Because Beckmann, the junior party, has not filed a priority statement alleging a date of invention prior to Gandhi’s accorded filing date, there is no basis to proceed to a priority determination. Accordingly, we enter a judgment terminating the interference in a separate paper. 10 Interference 105,822 30 cc (e-mail): Attorneys for Beckmann: Michael H. Jacobs, Esq. 5 Vincent J. Galluzzo, Esq. CROWELL & MORING, LLP Intellectual Property Group MJACOBS@CROWELL.COM VGALLUZZO@CROWELL.COM 10 Attorneys for Gandhi: E. Anthony Figg, Esq. R. Danny Huntington, Esq. 15 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC EFIGG@RFEM.COM DHUNTINGTON@RFEM.COM 20 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation