Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01773/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01773-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neste Oil Oyj
Appellee
REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

NESTE OIL OYJ,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1773

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00578.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2016 

______________________ 

JEAN MARIE GILLS, Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, IL, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL 

ROBERT HOUSTON. 

MICHAEL J. FLIBBERT, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, argued for appellee. 

Also represented by MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, KRISTI 

L. MCINTYRE. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2016
2 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

This appeal arises from a petition for inter partes review filed by Neste Oil Oyj (Neste) against claims 1–5 and 

8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,231,804 (’804 patent), which is 

owned by REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (REG). The United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (Board) instituted trial, and in its final 

written decision, the Board found claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 

anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,992,605 (Craig), and 

claims 1–3, 5, and 8 anticipated by U.S. Published Patent 

Application No. 2008/0312480 (Dindi). Neste Oil Oyj v. 

REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, 2015 WL 

1263029, at *14, 17 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2015). During trial, 

both parties filed motions to exclude documentary evidence, and the Board excluded several REG exhibits 

based on hearsay and other grounds. REG appeals the 

Board’s unpatentability determinations and its exclusion 

of certain REG exhibits. For the reasons stated herein, 

we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and 

remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

The ’804 patent is directed to paraffin compositions 

containing primarily even-carbon-number paraffins and 

methods of making them. Paraffins are hydrocarbon 

chains that contain carbon and hydrogen atoms, and 

even-carbon-number paraffins are saturated hydrocarbon 

chains with the general chemical formula CnH2n+2,1 in 

which the “n” is an even number. 

Even-carbon-number paraffins are useful as phase 

change materials (PCMs), which can be used as insulation 

 

1 The parties use Cn or Cn as a shorthand for 

CnH2n+2. These notations refer to the same hydrocarbon 

chain.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 3

in a house because they can absorb heat during the warm 

portions of the day by undergoing a solid-liquid phase 

transition and return the heat during the cooler portions 

of the day by re-freezing. The thermal storage capacity of 

PCMs is determined by their latent heat of fusion, which 

is higher for even-carbon-number paraffins than for oddcarbon-number paraffins. The ’804 patent seeks to increase the production of compositions with higher percentages of even-carbon-number paraffins. One method 

disclosed in the ’804 patent is the hydrogenation and 

deoxygenation of naturally occurring fatty acids and 

esters, such as bio-oils, to produce primarily even-carbonnumber paraffins.

Claim 1 is representative for purposes of this appeal:

1. A phase change material composition comprising at least 75 wt% even carbon number paraffins, 

wherein the paraffins are produced by hydrogenation/hydrogenolysis of naturally occurring fatty 

acids and esters.

During trial, the Board provided several claim constructions, none of which are being appealed. It first 

found that the preamble of claim 1 was not limiting

because the term “phase change material composition” 

expressed only an intended use, and did not limit the 

scope of the claim. It also found that the process of production (i.e., producing paraffins by “hydrogenation/hydrogenolysis of naturally occurring fatty acids and 

esters”) was not limiting. Because the Board found that 

the term “phase change material composition,” and the 

process of production were not limiting, and neither party 

challenges these constructions, we accept them. The key

limitation for purposes of this appeal is the “at least 75 

wt% even carbon number paraffins” limitation. The 

“wt%” limitation describes the percentage concentration, 

in units of weight percent, of even-carbon-number to oddcarbon-number paraffins in the claimed composition. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2016
4 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and it further recites that 

the composition comprises at least 80 wt% even-carbonnumber paraffins. Claims 3–5 depend on claim 1, and 

they recite specific numbers of carbons. Claim 8 depends 

on claim 1 and recites the presence of a catalyst. 

Neste requested inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 

8 of the ’804 patent in September 2013. The Board instituted trial in March 2014, based on a reasonable likelihood of finding that Dindi and Craig anticipated the 

claims. 

In its final decision, the Board found that Craig anticipated claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 because Craig disclosed a 

process for producing hydrocarbon products in the diesel 

boiling range (C15H32 through C18H38) that are effective in 

improving diesel fuel ignition. Craig disclosed hydrocarbon products obtained from naturally occurring feedstocks, and the results of a gas chromatography mass 

spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of the products, shown as 

peak area percentages for each hydrocarbon. Although 

Craig did not disclose weight percentages, the Board 

found that Craig anticipated claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 because 

a person of ordinary skill in the art could readily convert 

the disclosed peak area percentages into their corresponding weight percentages, and the sum of the converted 

peak area percentages of Craig met the claim requirement 

that the overall weight percentage of even-carbon-number 

paraffins be at least 75 wt%. 

The Board also found that Dindi anticipated claims 1–

3, 5, and 8 because Dindi described a process for converting renewable resources, such as vegetable oil and animal 

fat, into paraffins, in which a renewable resource is 

processed using hydrogen and a molybdenum catalyst to 

produce a hydrocarbon product with a ratio of evenCase: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 5

carbon-numbered to odd-carbon-numbered hydrocarbons 

of at least 2:1.2 At trial, REG sought to introduce certain 

exhibits to establish an earlier invention date that predated Dindi’s filing date. These exhibits included, for 

example, test data from third parties, communications 

between REG’s inventor, Mr. Abhari, and third parties on 

the invention and the test data, and minutes from meetings that Mr. Abhari had attended. Neste moved to 

exclude, and the Board agreed to exclude, these REG 

exhibits based on lack of authentication, hearsay, or 

improper reply evidence. REG contends that these exhibits show the mental thoughts of Mr. Abhari and that he 

communicated his invention to third parties prior to 

Dindi’s filing date. 

The Board issued its final written decision on March 

12, 2015, finding that Neste established by a preponderance of evidence that Craig and Dindi anticipated all of

the challenged claims. On appeal, REG challenges the 

Board’s anticipation findings, and its rulings on REG’s

excluded exhibits. REG argues that Craig cannot anticipate claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 because Craig discloses area 

percentages rather than weight percentages, and that 

Dindi cannot anticipate claims 1–3, 5, and 8 because Mr. 

Abhari invented the subject matter of the ’804 patent 

before Dindi’s filing date. REG also argues that the 

Board’s exclusion of its exhibits was prejudicial because 

REG relied on them to show that Mr. Abhari recognized 

and communicated his conception of the invention to a 

third party before Dindi’s June 13, 2008 filing date. 

 

2 This ratio of at least 2:1 appears to be less than 

75%, but the parties do not dispute that Dindi meets the 

at least 75 wt% (and the at least 80 wt%) limitation for 

purposes of this appeal.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/08/2016
6 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

ANALYSIS

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a).

I. Standard of Review

Anticipation is a question of fact, and decisions from 

the Board on factual matters are reviewed for substantial 

evidence. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of 

Wash., 334 F.3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

“Priority of invention and its constituent issues of 

conception and reduction to practice are questions of law 

predicated on subsidiary factual findings.”3 Singh v. 

Brake, 317 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we 

“review de novo the Board’s legal conclusions with respect 

to priority, conception, and reduction to practice.” Id. To 

show prior invention, REG must “either prove (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of 

[Dindi] or (2) a conception before the filing date of [Dindi] 

combined with diligence and reduction to practice after 

that date.” Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 

726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In appeals from the 

Board, corroboration is a subsidiary factual issue reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 

1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

 

3 “Congress amended 35 U.S.C. § 102 in 2011 as 

part of the America Invents Act (‘AIA’).” Medicines Co. v. 

Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1372 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en 

banc) (citing Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 

84, 341 (2011)). “References to § 102 . . . in this opinion 

refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute, the version 

that applies here” because the claims at issue have an 

effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013. Id.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 7

We review the Board’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of 

discretion. Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003).

II. Anticipation by Craig

We begin with REG’s argument that Craig does not 

anticipate claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 of the ’804 patent because 

Craig discloses area percentages rather than weight 

percentages.

The Board determined that Table 9 of Craig discloses 

naturally occurring feedstocks, including canola oil, 

rapeseed oil, and palm oil, and the hydrocarbon products 

produced from each of these feedstocks. Table 9 shows

the results of a GC-MS analysis of the hydrocarbon products produced by Craig, shown in peak area percentages 

for each hydrocarbon, e.g., C16. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/08/2016
8 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

Table 9 discloses, for example, that hydrotreating 

“Canola Oil, Premium Quantity, 210-343 oC cut” results in 

a hydrocarbon product with peak area percentages of 

3.1% C16, 78.28% C18 and 1.38% C20. The Board noted 

that the GC-MS area percentages do not by themselves 

establish, by a preponderance of evidence, weight percentages within the claimed ranges of the ’804 patent. 

The Board agreed, however, with Neste’s expert (Dr. 

Klein) that a person of ordinary skill in the art could use 

relative response factors to convert GC-MS area percentages into weight percentages.

REG argued to the Board that Craig does not provide 

enough information to accurately convert the GC-MS 

peak area percentages to weight percentages using relative response factors, but the Board disagreed. The Board

found that Dr. Klein’s Table 2 illustrated that Craig’s 

Table 9 disclosed products containing even-carbonnumber paraffins sufficiently within the weight percentage range of 75 wt% recited in claim 1 of the ’804 patent. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 9

Table 2 shows Dr. Klein’s calculation of the weight 

percentages for various feedstocks from Craig’s Table 9, 

using three sets of relative response factors, which Dr. 

Klein obtained from the prior art references in the record

(Hsu, Göröcs, and Chaurasia). J.A. 1316. The Board 

found that the lowest calculated weight for Canola Premium, for instance, was 82.31 wt%, which was more than 

7% higher than the 75 wt% recited in claim 1 of the ’804 

patent. Although Dr. Klein calculated different weight 

percentages when he used each of the three relative 

response factors, the differences in calculated wt% values 

among the uses of the three relative response factors were

very small, as shown in Table 2. Thus, the Board found it 

unlikely that any correction required by the experimental 

conditions would result in a weight percentage of less 

than the 75 wt% recited in claim 1.4

 

4 The Board found that Dr. Klein’s calculated values were too close to claim 2’s limitation of at least 80 

wt% to conclude that Neste established, by a preponderCase: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/08/2016
10 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

REG argues that the Board used an erroneous inherency standard because the Board found it unlikely that 

Craig did not disclose the claimed limitations of “weight 

percentages.” REG believes that the Board relied on Dr. 

Klein’s testimony to “fill the gap” in Craig by estimating 

weight percentages using the area percentages of Craig, 

and in REG’s view, this conversion is not so straightforward. REG points to evidence that converting weight and 

area percentages requires calibration of the instrument to 

account for actual instrument operating conditions. Dr. 

Klein did not perform this calibration, and instead used 

several different estimates to suggest precision. REG 

contends that precision does not mean accuracy, absent 

calibration.

Neste responds that the Board did not use inherency 

because Craig expressly discloses the concentration of 

even-carbon-number paraffins in area percentages. Neste 

argues that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

finding that a person of ordinary skill could readily convert Craig’s area percentages to the weight percentages 

recited in the claims using Dr. Klein’s calculations. 

We agree with Neste. Dr. Klein converted the area 

percentages of Craig into the weight percentages recited 

in the ’804 patent using several different relative response factors from the prior art, including Göröcs and 

Chaurasia, which REG’s own expert, Dr. Lamb, cited in 

his expert declaration. J.A. 2895–98. Dr. Lamb agreed 

that relative response factors could be used to convert 

area percentages to weight percentages, and that Göröcs 

and Chaurasia disclosed that response factors increase 

linearly with carbon number, but he concluded that Craig 

 

ance of the evidence, that Table 9 discloses compounds 

within the scope of claim 2. Neste does not appeal this 

finding.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 11

did not provide any calibration data or other indicia of 

reliability.5 J.A.2897–98. This is not an inherency issue, 

however, because the challenged limitation is not missing 

from Craig. See Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 

F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled 

with recourse to extrinsic evidence.”). Craig is not silent 

as to the concentration of even-carbon-number paraffins

because it expressly discloses this concentration in area 

percentage. Dr. Klein simply converted one unit of measurement (area percent) into another unit of measurement

(weight percent) by using relative response factors from 

the prior art. Dr. Klein explained that this conversion 

was a reliable technique given the very similar weight 

percentage results after using three different sets of 

relative response factors. J.A. 1309–17. On this record, 

 

5 At oral argument, REG agreed that its argument 

to predate the Dindi reference relied on exhibits that 

show area percents rather than weight percents. REG 

concluded, however, that the essential distinction was 

that Craig used a GC-MS detector, whereas Mr. Abhari 

used a gas chromatography analyzer with flame ionization detector (GC-FID). REG’s expert Dr. Lamb testified 

that unlike for a GC-MS detector, a paraffin’s weight 

percent can be reliably calculated from the GC-FID area 

percent and the relative response factor for that paraffin 

because GC-FID response factors for paraffins in the C14-

C22 range are equivalent within ~1%. J.A. 2895–98. 

Neste responded that per Dr. Klein’s testimony, a person 

of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized 

that quantitative data from a GC-MS detector could be 

reliably converted to weight percentages using the relative response factors, and weight percentages were all 

that the claims required. J.A. 1309–17. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/08/2016
12 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual finding 

that the area percent disclosed in Craig could be reliably 

translated to the weight percent recited in the ’804 patent.

REG argues that Chaurasia discloses an average error of 3–5% with a range of +/- 20% of the observed values. This error range, however, does not arise from 

Chaurasia’s own analysis, but it is Chaurasia’s description of an error range from a separate study by Fitch and 

Sauter, i.e., it is a reference within a reference. Fitch and 

Sauter itself is not part of the record. Furthermore, the 

Fitch and Sauter error range applies to the calculation of 

the atomic or molecular cross-section of a specific molecule, not the percentage concentration of even-to-odd 

carbon number paraffins in a mixture of paraffins. Another distinction is that Fitch and Sauter’s error range

applies to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyl products (i.e., they contain chlorine, 

phenyl, and other pollutants), which are more complex 

molecules than the even-carbon-number paraffins (i.e.,

linear straight chain alkanes containing only carbons and 

hydrogens) at issue in this case. Thus, REG fails to 

establish that the error range of Fitch and Sauter is 

applicable to Dr. Klein’s calculations. 

In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Board’s finding 

that Craig anticipates claims 1, 3, 4 and 8 of the ’804 

patent.

III. Anticipation by Dindi

Because claims 2 and 5 of the ’804 patent remain at 

issue, we must still address REG’s arguments with respect to anticipation of claims 2 and 5 by Dindi. Claim 2 

depends on claim 1, and recites that the composition 

comprises at least 80 wt% even-carbon-number paraffins. 

Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and it recites that the evencarbon-number paraffins include n-dodecane and ntetradecane.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 13

REG argued before the Board that Dindi was not prior 

art to the ’804 patent because Mr. Abhari invented the 

subject matter of the ’804 patent before the June 13, 2008 

filing date of Dindi. The Board recognized that to antedate Dindi, REG had to “prove (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of [Dindi] or (2) a 

conception before the filing date of [Dindi] combined with 

diligence and reduction to practice after that date.” 

Taurus IP, 726 F.3d at 1323. In either case, REG had to

prove conception prior to the June 13, 2008 filing date of 

Dindi. Id. 

Conception is “the formation, in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete 

and operative invention, as it is thereafter to be applied in 

practice.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir.

1985) (emphasis in original) (quoting Gunter v. Stream, 

573 F.2d 77, 80 (C.C.P.A. 1978)). Conception must include every feature or limitation of the claimed invention. 

Davis v. Reddy, 620 F.2d 885, 889 (C.C.P.A. 1980). “Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which 

shows that the inventor disclosed to others his ‘completed 

thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those

skilled in the art’ to make the invention.” Coleman, 754 

F.2d at 359 (quoting Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 600 

(C.C.P.A. 1950)). However, “there is no final single formula that must be followed in proving corroboration.” 

Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

(quoting Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 266 (C.C.P.A. 

1969)). 

We agree with REG that it has proven conception prior to the filing date of Dindi, based on Exhibits 2011 and 

2058, both already admitted in evidence, and the content 

of Exhibit 2061, which the Board incorrectly excluded 

from evidence based on hearsay. These three exhibits 

provide documentary evidence that, by April 2008, Mr. 

Abhari conceived of a definite and permanent idea of the 

complete and operative invention, and that he had disCase: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/08/2016
14 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

closed to a third party his complete thoughts in such clear 

terms that the third party was able to make his invention 

using his process. 

We first review the documentary evidence already 

admitted in evidence. Exhibit 2011 contains an email 

dated October 19, 2007 from Mr. Abhari to SwRI, a third 

party, with an objective to “[c]onvert 1,200 gallons of biofeedstock to synthetic diesel product using SwRI’s large (2 

gal/h) fixed-bed hydrogenation unit.” J.A. 2722. This

email discloses a process for making the invention because it contains instructions for the reaction conditions 

and for conducting the sampling and analysis. Exhibit 

2011 broadly describes Mr. Abhari’s process as a way to 

produce synthetic diesel product, which is sufficient to 

show that Mr. Abhari disclosed his completed thought to 

SwRI in such clear terms as to enable SwRI to make the 

invention. See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359. We agree, 

however, that Exhibit 2011 is not sufficient by itself to 

show conception because it does not show that Mr. Abhari

knew that his process would create at least 75 wt% evencarbon-number paraffins.

We turn next to Exhibit 2058, also admitted in evidence, which contains an email dated April 2, 2008 from 

SwRI back to Mr. Abhari, describing the results of the 

latest test runs. SwRI’s email expressly identifies one of 

the test runs as Sample “084.” The GC data for Sample 

“084” contains both a graph and a table showing peak 

results with the following area percentages: C14 (1.218%), 

C16 (21.926%), C18 (56.773%), and C20 (0.871%). J.A. 3454. 

The sum of the area percentages for these four evencarbon-number paraffins is 80.788%. Mr. Abhari quickly 

replied to SwRI by email, inquiring about the results of a 

second sample. J.A. 3443. SwRI responded that same 

day, writing that the second sample contained area percentages of C16 (22%), C17 (11%), and C18 (55%). 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 15

Taken together, Exhibits 2011 and 2058 disclose all 

the limitations of claims 1 and 2 because Exhibit 2058 

discloses a diesel product composition6 that contained at 

least 80 wt% even-carbon-number paraffins.7 Exhibit 

2011 shows that SwRI created the claimed composition 

using a “hydrogenation” process of naturally occurring 

fatty acids and esters, as recited by claim 1, because Mr. 

Abhari sent an email to SwRI stating that the objective 

was to convert “biofeedstock” to “diesel fuel,” using SwRI’s 

“fixed-bed hydrogenation unit.” J.A. 2722. Mr. Abhari 

knew that SwRI had created the composition because he 

responded to SwRI’s email describing the results. He 

disclosed his invention to others because Exhibit 2058 

shows that SwRI made the composition using Mr. Abhari’s instructions from Exhibit 2011.

Neste argues that nothing in Exhibits 2011 and 2058

discloses the process that Mr. Abhari attempted to test. 

This is incorrect because Exhibit 2011 shows that in 

October 2007, Mr. Abhari emailed SwRI a description of a 

process, and Exhibit 2058 shows that in April 2008, SwRI 

emailed Mr. Abhari the results of that process. Neste 

provides no reason to suggest that SwRI would not have

followed Mr. Abhari’s express instructions.

Neste also asserts that nothing in Exhibits 2011 and 

2058 shows that Mr. Abhari knew that the sum of the 

weight percentages of the even-carbon-number paraffins

met claim 2’s limitation of “at least 80 wt%.” The sum of

 

6 As noted earlier, the Board’s construction of claim 

1 does not require the claimed composition to be a PCM

material, nor does it require the compositions to be made 

by any particular process. 7 Although Exhibit 2058 discloses area percentages 

rather than weight percentages, Neste does not argue 

that Exhibit 2058 is ineffective for that reason. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/08/2016
16 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

the four percentages for C14 (1.218%), C16 (21.926%), C18

(56.773%), and C20 (0.871%) is more than 80%, but it is 

true that nothing from Mr. Abhari in Exhibits 2011 and 

2058 expressly stated that the percentages of evencarbon-number paraffins should be summed up or that 

the sum of these percentages met claim 2’s limitation of 

“at least 80 wt%.” This “knowledge” of Mr. Abhari is 

supplied by Exhibit 2061, which contains an email dated 

April 29, 2008 from Mr. Abhari to Microtek, another third 

party who specialized in PCM materials, stating that he 

could achieve an 80% purity C18 product.8 

Exhibit 2061 is a set of two emails between Mr. Abhari and Microtek. The first email is from Dawn Mantz of 

Microtek to Mr. Abhari on March 6, 2008, in which Ms. 

Mantz thanks Mr. Abhari for sending a sample and 

informs Mr. Abhari that Microtek had already begun its 

preliminary testing on the sample in the lab. The second 

email is from Mr. Abhari to Amy Damewood and Ms. 

Mantz on April 29, 2008, in which Mr. Abhari informs Ms. 

Damewood and Ms. Mantz that he has “had more difficulty than [he] expected trying to recover a 90+% purity 

nC18 product using [his] lab distillation glassware (80% 

purity C18 is the best [they] got).” J.A. 7868. Neste 

argued before the Board that these emails were hearsay 

because they contain out of court statements by Ms. 

Mantz. REG responded that these emails were not hearsay, because it did not offer the emails to prove the truth 

of the matter asserted. Rather, REG contended that it 

offered the emails to show that Mr. Abhari recognized the 

usefulness of high even-carbon-number paraffins as a 

PCM material and that he would not have otherwise 

 

8 Exhibit 2061 also discloses percentages rather 

than weight percentages, but Neste does not argue that 

Exhibit 2061 is ineffective for that reason.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 16 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 17

contacted Microtek. The Board agreed with REG, in part,

finding that the fact that Mr. Abhari contacted Microtek 

was a non-hearsay use of Exhibit 2061, and the Board 

admitted Exhibit 2061 for that limited purpose. The 

Board did not consider the content of Exhibit 2061, which 

it found to be hearsay. 

We find that the Board erred to the extent that it excluded the content of Exhibit 2061 based on hearsay 

because REG offered Exhibit 2061 for the non-hearsay 

purpose to show that Mr. Abhari thought he had achieved 

80 wt% purity C18 product.9 The act of writing and sending the email is, by itself, probative evidence on whether 

Mr. Abhari recognized—at the time that he had written 

the email—that the sum of the weight percentages of

even-carbon-number paraffins in his compositions was at 

least 80 wt% and communicated this to a third party. In 

Knorr v. Pearson, 671 F.2d 1368, 1372–73 (C.C.P.A. 1982), 

the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals found that 

a statement was not hearsay if “the communication (as 

opposed to the truth) ha[d] legal significance.” Knorr

involved a telephone call, in which two co-inventors, 

Buergin and Pearson, discussed an invention, and which 

was overheard by a third party, Rutkowski. Id. at 1370. 

The court held that Rutkowski’s testimony on what he 

heard Buergin say to Pearson was not hearsay because 

the communication of the idea had legal significance as 

the basis for the conception of the invention. Id. at 1373–

74. By contrast, Rutkowski’s testimony on “Buergin’s 

statements to Rutkowski regarding what Pearson said” 

was hearsay. Id. at 1373.

 

9 Neste did not challenge the authentication of Exhibit 2061, J.A. 546, 552, so we infer that Exhibit 2061 

accurately shows the communications between Mr. Abhari and Microtek in March and April, 2008. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 17 Filed: 11/08/2016
18 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

Here, Knorr supports REG’s position that Mr. Abhari’s communication with Microtek in Exhibit 2061 is 

legally significant because it shows that Mr. Abhari 

communicated the conception of his invention to a third 

party, Microtek. Thus, the documentary evidence contained in Exhibits 2011, 2058, and 2061 corroborate Mr. 

Abhari’s conception of the claimed compositions as of

April 2008. Exhibit 2011 shows that Mr. Abhari disclosed his process to a third party. Exhibit 2058 shows 

that the third party produced the claimed compositions

using this process, and Exhibit 2061 shows that Mr. 

Abhari recognized and communicated to a third party

that he could create a composition with the claimed 

property of at least 80 wt% even-carbon-number paraffins.

 The Board also found that it could not determine 

from Exhibit 2061 the specific product or process that Mr. 

Abhari had in mind, or the fact that Mr. Abhari had 

recognized that he had created something new, when he 

had emailed Microtek that he could achieve at least 80

wt% purity C18 product. Conception, however, does not 

require that Mr. Abhari recognize that he created a PCM 

material, or the specific process by which he had created 

80 wt% purity C18 product, because the Board’s construction of the claims did not limit the invention based on 

these features. The only feature at issue here is whether 

Mr. Abhari disclosed a composition containing at least 80

wt% even-carbon-number paraffins to others, and we find 

that he did. Mr. Abhari’s email to Microtek expressly 

states that he could achieve at least 80% purity C18 product, which was new in April 2008 because this product did 

not exist in the prior art, given the record before us. Nor 

does Neste dispute that Mr. Abhari sent this email to 

Microtek because the Board admitted Exhibit 2061 to

show that Mr. Abhari contacted Microtek, which Neste 

does not appeal. 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 18 Filed: 11/08/2016
REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ 19

We reverse the Board’s findings on conception and its

exclusion of the contents of Exhibit 2061 based on hearsay. We find that Exhibit 2061 shows that Mr. Abhari 

“disclosed to others,” see Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, a 

composition including every feature or limitation of the 

claimed invention, see Davis, 620 F.2d at 889. We also 

find that, based on Exhibits 2011, 2058, and 2061, Mr. 

Abhari’s disclosure was a “‘completed thought expressed 

in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art’ to 

make the invention.” Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359. However, because the Board did not make factual findings on 

diligence or reduction to practice in the first instance, we 

remand for the Board to make these findings. 

REG also appeals the Board’s exclusion of Exhibits 

2012, 2013, 2057 and 2062 based on hearsay. We do not 

address these rulings because we find that Exhibits 2011, 

2058 and 2061 are sufficient to show conception, but 

because Exhibits 2012, 2013, 2057 and 2062 may be 

relevant for diligence and reduction to practice, we vacate 

the Board’s exclusion of these exhibits and remand for 

further consideration consistent with this opinion. 

We have considered REG’s remaining arguments and

find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision to 

exclude Exhibits 2003 and 2006 for lack of authentication. 

We also find no abuse of discretion in its exclusion of 

Exhibit 2053 for improper reply evidence. Our affirmance 

of those exclusions should not be taken as necessarily 

approving of all of the Board’s reasoning explaining the 

exclusions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s determination that Craig anticipates claims 1, 3, 4 and 8 of 

the ’804 patent. However, we reverse the Board’s finding 

that REG failed to establish conception of the invention 

prior to Dindi’s filing date of June 13, 2008. Consequently, we vacate the Board’s finding of anticipation of claims 

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 19 Filed: 11/08/2016
20 REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC v. NESTE OIL OYJ

2 and 5, and we remand for further fact finding on diligence and reduction to practice. 

We reverse the Board’s determination to exclude Exhibit 2061 for failure to consider its non-hearsay purpose. 

We vacate the Board’s exclusion of Exhibits 2012, 2013, 

2057 and 2062 for hearsay, and we affirm the Board’s 

exclusion of Exhibits 2003, 2006 and 2053 based on lack 

of authentication and improper reply evidence. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, 

VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-1773 Document: 46-2 Page: 20 Filed: 11/08/2016