throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,601,662
`Issue Date: October 13, 2009
`Title: COPPER CHA ZEOLITE CATALYSTS
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHANNES A. LERCHER, PH.D.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01121
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 1 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................... 1
`
`ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED ........................................... 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’662 PATENT .................................................................. 5
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’662 PATENT .......................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Catalyst” ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`“[Z]eolite having the CHA crystal structure” ........................................... 14
`
`“[T]he catalyst effective to promote the reaction of ammonia with
`nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen and H2O selectively” .......................... 15
`“[I]on-exchanged copper” and “non-exchanged copper” ...................... 17
`
`VI.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 18
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ........................................................... 19
`
`Zones and Maeshima Render Claims 1-11 and 30 Obvious ................... 20
`
`Zones, Maeshima, and Patchett ’843 Render Claims 12-24 and 32-
`50 Obvious .................................................................................................... 45
`
`Purported “Secondary Considerations” .................................................... 76
`
`There Is Nothing Unexpected or Critical About the Claimed
`Range .............................................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 2 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Johannes A. Lercher, Ph.D, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the
`
`Technische Universität München, located in Munich, Germany.
`
`2.
`
`I studied chemistry at the Vienna University of Technology from 1972-
`
`1978, and engaged in graduate work in chemistry at the same university from 1978-
`
`1980. I received a doctorate degree in chemistry from the Vienna University of
`
`Technology in 1981. My thesis was entitled “Acid Sites on Al2O3/MgO and
`
`Al2O3/SiO2 Mixed Metal Oxides.” In 1985, I obtained the habilitation (venia
`
`docendi) in physical chemistry.
`
`3.
`
` Starting during my academic studies and continuing until 1993, I was a
`
`lecturer and an Associate Professor in Chemistry at the Vienna University of
`
`Technology.
`
`4.
`
`From 1993 to 1998, I was a full Professor for Catalytic Materials and
`
`Processes at the Department of Chemical Technology of the University Twente, the
`
`Netherlands
`
`5.
`
`I have been a Professor at the Technische Universität München since
`
`1998.
`
`6.
`
`My research lies in the areas of fundamental and applied aspects of oxide
`
`and molecular sieve based sorption and catalysis, the design of complex
`
`multifunctional catalysts, in situ characterization of catalytic processes and developing
`-1-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 3 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`new routes to activate, convert and functionalize hydrocarbons in petroleum and
`
`petrochemical processes.
`
`7.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have taught classes entitled “Industrial
`
`Catalytic Reactions and Reaction Mechanisms,” “Heterogeneous Catalysis I: Theory
`
`and Model Reactions,” “Heterogeneous Catalysis II: Application in Industrial
`
`Processes and Environmental Protection,” “Physical Chemistry,” “Thermodynamics
`
`of Phases,” “Kinetics and Catalysis,” “Industrial Catalysis,” “Environmental
`
`Catalysis,” “Reaction Technology and Catalysis,” “Industrial Processes I – Energy,”
`
`“Industrial Processes II – Chemical Synthesis,” and “Chemically Functional
`
`Materials.”
`
`8.
`
`In addition to my professorial positions, I have also had other university
`
`titles and have been part of several professional organizations.
`
`9.
`
`In particular, I was the Chairman of the Department of Chemistry at the
`
`Technische Universität München from 2000 to 2003, was the President of the
`
`International Zeolite Association from 2001 to 2004, and am currently President of
`
`the Federation of European Catalysis Societies.
`
`10. My research activity has been published in over 480 scientific papers in
`
`international journals. A listing of my publications is included in my curriculum vitae.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Catalysis, and am a
`
`member of the board of several other catalysis journals. Further, I am on the editorial
`
`board of the book series, Catalysis Book Series: Theory and Applications (Royal
`-2-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 4 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`Society of Chemistry).
`
`12.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae, which provides further details regarding
`
`my academic background, professional experience, publications, teaching experience,
`
`awards I have received, and organization memberships, is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Umicore AG & Co. KG’s
`
`(“Umicore’s”) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662 (“the
`
`’662 patent”), Case No. IPR2015-01121.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`I am not an employee of Umicore or any affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of 400 euros per hour.
`
`My compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the opinions I offer
`
`below, or upon the outcome of Umicore’s petition for inter partes review (or the
`
`outcome of such an inter partes review, if a trial is initiated).
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the patentability
`
`of the claims of the ’662 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion regarding (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’662 patent
`
`pertains and (ii) the patentability of claims 1-24, 30, and 32-50.
`
`17.
`
`The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of claims 1-24, 30, and 32-50. Therefore, the fact that I
`
`do not address a particular point should not be understood to indicate any agreement
`
`on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the patentability requirements.
`-3-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 5 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed (i) the ’662 patent and its
`
`prosecution history; and (ii) prior art to the ’662 patent, including:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,709,644 to Zones et al. (“Zones”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,046,888 to Maeshima et al.(“Maeshima”);
`
`U.S. Patent App. 2006/0039843 to Patchett et al. (“Patchett
`
`’843”); and
`
`U.S. Patent App. 2005/0031514 to Patchett et al. (“Patchett
`
`’514”).
`
`19.
`
`I have also reviewed all of the following additional materials in
`
`connection with the preparation of this declaration:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,404,203 to Bull et al. (and its prosecution
`
`history);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,544,538 to Zones;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,503,023 to Breck, deceased et al.;
`
`Dedecek et al., “Siting of the Cu+ Ions in Dehydrated Ion
`
`Exchanged Synthetic and Natural Chabasites: a Cu+
`
`Photoluminescence Study” Microporous and Mesoporous
`
`Materials, Vol. 32, pp. 63-74 (1999);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,961,917 to Byrne;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497 to Speronello et al.;
`
`-4-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 6 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`Ishihara et al., “Copper Ion-Exchanged SAPO-34 as a
`
`Thermostable Catalyst for Selective Reduction of NO with C3H6,”
`
`169 Journal of Catalysis 93-102 (1997);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,297,328 to Ritscher et al.;
`
`Chung, S.Y. et al., “Effect of Si/Al Ratio of Mordenite and ZSM-
`
`5 Type Zeolite Catalysts on Hydrothermal Stability for NO
`
`Reduction by Hydrocarbons,” Studies in Surface Science and
`
`Catalysis, vol. 130, pp. 1511-1516 (2000); and
`
`(cid:120)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Frank-Walter Schütze.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’662 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`The ’662 patent names Ivor Bull, Wen-Mei Xue, Patrick Burk, R. Samuel
`
`Boorse, William M. Jaglowski, Gerald S. Koermer, Ahmad Moini, Joseph A. Patchett,
`
`Joseph C. Dettling, and Matthew T. Caudle as inventors.
`
`21.
`
` The ’662 patent states that it was filed on February 27, 2008, and issued
`
`October 13, 2009. The ’662 patent states that it “claims the benefit of priority … to
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 60/891,835, filed on Feb. 27, 2007.” (’662 patent, 1:6-8.)
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume that the ’662 patent has
`
`an effective filing date of February 27, 2007.
`
`22.
`
`The ’662 patent generally relates to “zeolites that have the CHA crystal
`
`structure.” (’662 patent, 1:13-15.)
`
`-5-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 7 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`23.
`
`According to the ’662 patent, the catalysts are “copper CHA zeolite
`
`catalysts” and can be “use[d] in exhaust treatment systems.” (’662 patent, 1:16-18.)
`
`24.
`
`Before further discussing the materials and processes of the patent, the
`
`’662 patent provides an overview of what it believes to be the “Background Art.”
`
`(’662 patent, 1:20-51.)
`
`25.
`
`As part of this overview, the ’662 patent explains that “[z]eolites are
`
`aluminosilicate crystalline materials having rather uniform pore size which, depending
`
`upon the type of zeolite and the type and amount of cations included in the zeolite
`
`lattice, typically range from about 3 to 10 Angstroms in diameter.” (’662 patent, 1:22-
`
`26.)
`
`26.
`
`The patent also states that “[b]oth synthetic and natural zeolites and
`
`their use in promoting certain reactions, including the selective reduction of nitrogen
`
`oxides with ammonia in the presence of oxygen, are well known in the art.” (’662
`
`patent, 1:26-29.)
`
`27.
`
`In this same “Background Art” section, the ’662 patent also states that
`
`“[m]etal-promoted zeolite catalysts including, among others, iron-promoted and
`
`copper-promoted zeolite catalysts, for the selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen
`
`oxides with ammonia are known.” (’662 patent, 1:30-33.)
`
`28.
`
`The ’662 patent then goes on to state that “[o]ne embodiment of the
`
`present invention pertains to copper CHA catalysts and their application in exhaust
`
`gas systems such as those designed to reduce nitrogen oxides.” (’662 patent, 1:62-64.)
`-6-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 8 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`29.
`
`The patent indicates that it “relates to a catalyst comprising a zeolite
`
`having the CHA crystal structure and a mole ratio of silica to alumina” (which I will
`
`refer to as the “SAR”) “greater than about 15” and an “atomic ratio of copper to
`
`aluminum” (which I will refer to as the “Cu/Al ratio”) “exceeding about 0.25.” (’662
`
`patent, 2:9-12.)
`
`30.
`
`The patent indicates that its “catalyst” can be part of systems treating gas
`
`streams “emanating from gasoline or diesel engines.” (’662 patent, 1:58-61.)
`
`31.
`
`The specification explains that its catalyst can be coated on known types
`
`of substrates, including “wall flow” or “flow through” “honeycomb” substrates. (’662
`
`patent, 2:38-41.)
`
`32. Other components of an exhaust gas treatment system are also
`
`discussed, including an “oxidation catalyst,” a “soot filter,” and a device to add a
`
`reductant like “ammonia” to an exhaust stream. (’662 patent, 5:63-6:3; 21:64-23:7.)
`
`33.
`
`All of these components were well-known and routinely used as part of
`
`exhaust gas treatment systems at the time the ’662 patent was filed.
`
`34.
`
`I have also reviewed the prosecution history of the ’662 patent, along
`
`with the documents submitted in connection with the reexamination of the ’662
`
`patent.
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’662 PATENT
`
`35.
`
`The ’662 patent includes 46 claims. Claim 1 is the only independent
`
`claim. The remainder of the claims are dependent. Claims 25-29 and 31 were
`-7-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 9 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`cancelled during reexamination and are no longer part of the patent.
`
`36.
`
`Claims 1-24, 30, and 32-50 are reproduced below for reference:
`
`A catalyst comprising: an aluminosilicate zeolite having the
`1.
`CHA crystal structure and a mole ratio of silica to alumina from about
`15 to about 150 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum from 0.25 to
`about 1, the catalyst effective to promote the reaction of ammonia with
`nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen and H2O selectively.
`
`The catalyst of claim 1, wherein the mole ratio of silica to
`2.
`alumina is from about 15 to about 100.
`
`The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to
`3.
`alumina is from about 25 to about 40.
`
`4. The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to
`alumina is about 30.
`
`The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the atomic ratio of copper
`5.
`to aluminum is from about 0.30 to about 0.50.
`
`The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the atomic ratio of copper
`6.
`to aluminum is about 0.40.
`
`The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to
`7.
`alumina is from about 25 to about 40 and the atomic ratio of copper to
`aluminum is from about 0.30 to about 0.50.
`
`The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to
`8.
`alumina is about 30 and the atomic ratio of copper to alumina is about
`0.40.
`
`-8-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 10 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the catalyst contains ion-
`9.
`exchanged copper and non-exchanged copper.
`
`10. The catalyst of claim 9, wherein the NOx conversion
`performance of the catalyst at about 200°C. after aging is at least 90% of
`the NOx conversion performance of the catalyst at about 200oC. prior to
`aging.
`
`11. The catalyst of claim 9, wherein the catalyst contains at
`least about 2.00 weight percent copper oxide.
`
`12. The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the catalyst is deposited on
`a honeycomb substrate.
`
`13. The catalyst of claim 12, wherein the honeycomb substrate
`comprises a wall flow filter substrate.
`
`14. The catalyst of claim 12, wherein the honeycomb substrate
`comprises a flow through substrate.
`
`15. The catalyst of claim 14, wherein at least a portion of the
`flow through substrate is coated with CuCHA adapted to reduce oxides
`of nitrogen contained in a gas stream flowing through the substrate.
`
`16. The catalyst of claim 15, wherein at least a portion of the
`flow through substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`17. The catalyst of claim 14, wherein at least a portion of the
`flow through substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`-9-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 11 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`18. The catalyst of claim 13, wherein at least a portion of the
`wall flow substrate is coated with CuCHA adapted to reduce oxides of
`nitrogen contained in a gas stream flowing through the substrate.
`
`19. The catalyst of claim 18, wherein at least a portion of the
`wall flow substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`20. The catalyst of claim 13, wherein at least a portion of the
`wall flow substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`21. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 15 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector that
`adds a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`22. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 17 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to
`add a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`23. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 18 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to
`add a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`24. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 20 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to
`add a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`30. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising an exhaust gas
`stream containing NOx, and a catalyst in accordance with claim 2
`effective for selective catalytic reduction of at least one component of
`-10-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 12 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`NOx in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`32. The catalyst of claim 12, wherein the substrate comprises a
`high efficiency open cell foam filter.
`
`33. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 2 and further comprising a catalyzed soot filter.
`
`34. The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 33, wherein said
`catalyzed soot filter is upstream of said catalyst.
`
`35. The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 33, wherein said
`catalyzed soot filter is downstream of said catalyst.
`
`36. The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 33, further
`comprising a diesel oxidation catalyst.
`
`37. The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 36, wherein said
`diesel oxidation catalyst is upstream of said catalyst comprising a zeolite
`having the CHA crystal structure.
`
`38. The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 36, wherein said
`diesel oxidation catalyst and catalyzed soot filter are upstream from said
`catalyst comprising a zeolite having the CHA crystal structure.
`
`39. The catalyst of claim 3, wherein the catalyst is deposited on a
`honeycomb wall flow filter substrate to provide a catalyst article.
`
`40. The catalyst of claim 3, wherein the catalyst is deposited on a
`honeycomb flow through substrate to provide a catalyst article.
`
`-11-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 13 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`41. The catalyst article of claim 40, wherein at least a portion of the
`flow through substrate is coated-with CuCHA adapted to reduce oxides of
`nitrogen contained in a gas stream flowing through the substrate.
`
`42. The catalyst article of claim 41, wherein at least a portion of the
`flow through substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`43. The catalyst article of claim 40, wherein at least a portion of the
`flow through substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA. adapted to oxidize
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`44. The catalyst article of claim 39, wherein at least a portion of the
`wall flow substrate is coated with CuCHA adapted to reduce oxides of nitrogen
`contained in a gas stream flowing through the substrate.
`
`45. The catalyst article of claim 44, wherein at least a portion of the
`wall flow substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia
`in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`46. The catalyst article of claim 39, wherein at least a portion of the
`wall flow substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia
`in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`47. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 41 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a
`reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`48. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 43 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a
`reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`-12-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 14 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`49. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 44 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a
`reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`50. An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of
`claim 46 disposed downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a
`reductant to an exhaust gas stream from the engine.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`37.
`
`I understand that during an IPR proceeding, claim terms are afforded
`
`their broadest reasonable construction.
`
`38.
`
`As a result, in rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have
`
`considered what a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the ’662 patent’s claim terms.
`
`39.
`
`I also understand that claim terms are to be given their plain meaning
`
`unless it is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`40. While I understand that it is Umicore’s view that certain claims of the
`
`’662 patent are indefinite, I have not endeavored to address this issue in this
`
`declaration. Further, while I discuss the meaning of certain claim terms below, in
`
`doing so I do not mean to imply that it is my opinion that these terms (or any other
`
`term of the ’662 patent’s claims) satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`A.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`“Catalyst”
`
`All of the ’662 patent’s claims require a “catalyst.”
`
`The term “catalyst” is generally understood to refer to a material that
`-13-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 15 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`facilitates or increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any
`
`permanent change.
`
`43.
`
`I have reviewed the ’662 patent’s claims and was not able to clearly
`
`identify what materials make up the claimed “catalyst.”
`
`44.
`
`The specification, however, does provide that “a catalyst article
`
`comprises a honeycomb substrate having a zeolite having the CHA crystal structure
`
`deposited on the substrate.” (’662 patent, 2:56-58.) The patent goes on to explain
`
`that the zeolite has “an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum exceeding about 0.25 and
`
`containing an amount of free copper exceeding ion-exchanged copper.” (’662 patent,
`
`2:59-62.) Further, “[t]he catalyst may further comprise a binder.” (’662 patent, 2:67-
`
`3:1.)
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, this description in the specification along with the
`
`generally understood meaning of the term indicates that the “catalyst” of the claims
`
`can extend to a zeolite alone, or to the zeolite along with other materials such as the
`
`substrate, free copper, and a binder. I have been asked to apply this understanding of
`
`the claim term “catalyst” in assessing the prior art set forth in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`46.
`
` “[Z]eolite having the CHA crystal structure”
`
`All of the claims of the ’662 patent require a “zeolite having the CHA
`
`crystal structure.”
`
`47.
`
`The specification explains that the “CHA crystal structure” is “defined
`
`by the International Zeolite Association.” (’662 patent, 1:55-56.)
`-14-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 16 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`48.
`
`“CHA” is the crystal framework type code assigned by the International
`
`Zeolite Association (or “IZA”) to zeolite commonly known as “chabazite.”
`
`49.
`
`The IZA provides various different pertinent pieces of data for the CHA
`
`crystal framework. A copy of a summary data sheet made available by the IZA is
`
`attached to this declaration as B.
`
`50.
`
`Among other things, the IZA data sheet specifies the general chemical
`
`formula of a chabazite crystal material: |Ca6 (H2O)40|[Al12Si24O72]-CHA. It also
`
`provides structural data for the crystal itself. For instance, the CHA structure is
`
`composed of “d6r” and “cha” composite building units, has a “framework” that is an
`
`“AABBCC sequence of 6-rings,” and has channels that are approximately 3.8
`
`Angstroms by 3.8 Angstroms in size. The IZA also provides a three-dimensional
`
`drawing of the crystal structure.
`
`51.
`
`Thus, it is my understanding that a “zeolite with the CHA crystal
`
`structure” as claimed by the ’662 patent refers to chabazite materials with the crystal
`
`structure set forth in the IZA’s data sheet for the CHA framework.
`
`C.
`
`52.
`
`“[T]he catalyst effective to promote the reaction of ammonia with
`nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen and H2O selectively”
`Independent claim 1 of the ’662 patent requires that the “catalyst” be
`
`“effective to promote the reaction of ammonia with nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen
`
`and H2O selectively.”
`
`53.
`
`Based on my review of the prosecution and reexamination history of the
`
`-15-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 17 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`’662 patent, it appears that the Patent Owner may attempt to argue that this limitation
`
`requires a catalyst with very specific performance characteristics.
`
`54.
`
`For instance, during reexamination, the Patent Owner has indicated that
`
`the catalysts of the ’662 patent have “excellent” catalytic activity at low temperatures,
`
`including below 250°C, and maintain this activity even after exposure to extreme
`
`hydrothermal conditions. (See ’662 reexam, 10/12/12 Respondent Brief, at 7-8.)
`
`55.
`
`I have reviewed the ’662 patent’s claims, and do not see any limitations
`
`that require the type of performance referenced by the Patent Owner.
`
`56.
`
`Further, in my opinion the ’662 patent’s specification and prosecution
`
`history do not define any claim term to require the level of performance referenced by
`
`the Patent Owner, or state that the patent does not cover materials that do not
`
`perform this way.
`
`57.
`
`In fact, based on my review of the specification, the ’662 patent provides
`
`examples of catalytic materials that employ a zeolite with the CHA crystal structure
`
`and the claimed SAR and Cu/Al ratio, yet do not exhibit “excellent activity.” For
`
`instance, the ’662 patent explains that the catalytic material of Example 1 includes a
`
`zeolite with the CHA crystal structure that has a SAR of 30 and a Cu/Al ratio of 0.3.
`
`(’662 patent, 10:46-59; Table 1.) While this material possesses the CHA crystal
`
`structure, SAR, and Cu/Al ratio required by claim 1, the specification states that it
`
`“did not show enhanced resistance to thermal aging.” (’662 patent, 11:22-25.)
`
`-16-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 18 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`D.
`
`58.
`
`“[I]on-exchanged copper” and “non-exchanged copper”
`
`All of the ’662 patent’s claims require a catalyst that includes “copper.”
`
`Claim 9 requires both “ion-exchanged copper” and “non-exchanged copper.”
`
`59.
`
`In my opinion, the term “ion-exchanged copper,” as used in claim 9, has
`
`its ordinary meaning. “Ion-exchanged copper” is ordinarily understood to refer to
`
`copper ions that bind by ion exchange to exchange sites on the zeolite structure itself.
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, the term “non-exchanged copper” in claim 9 also has its
`
`ordinary meaning. This is consistent with the ’662 patent’s specification. In
`
`particular, the specification states that “non-exchanged copper” includes “free” or
`
`“soluble” copper that is not “associated with the exchange sites in the structure of the
`
`zeolite.” (’662 patent, 5:40-46.) The specification also states that “[u]pon calcination,
`
`the copper salt decomposes to CuO….” (’662 patent, 5:44-46.)
`
`61. With respect to the other terms in the ’662 patent’s claims, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of those claim terms, when comparing the
`
`claims to the prior art.
`
`VI.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`62.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1-24, 30, and 32-50 of the ’662 patent are all
`
`unpatentable and invalid as obvious over the prior art.
`
`63.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the subject
`
`matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the claimed subject matter as of the time of the invention at issue. I
`
`-17-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 19 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether the
`
`claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent and the prior art;
`
`and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. Unlike
`
`anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of prior art, I understand
`
`that obviousness may be shown by considering more than one item of prior art.
`
`Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like the following are
`
`also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial success; (2) long-
`
`felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand that
`
`evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope
`
`with the claimed subject matter.
`
`A.
`
`64.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that a patent must be written such that it can be
`
`understood by a “person of ordinary skill” in the field of the patent.
`
`65.
`
`I understand that this hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical
`
`field, as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`-18-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 20 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active
`
`workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of ordinary skill” is a
`
`hypothetical person, who is presumed to be aware of the universe of available prior
`
`art.
`
`66.
`
`In my opinion, in February 2007, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’662 patent would have at least a
`
`Master’s degree in chemistry or a related discipline, and have knowledge of the
`
`structure and chemistry of molecular sieves like zeolites, including factors that impact
`
`their stability and activity.
`
`67.
`
`Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now and
`
`as of February 2007) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`the field of technology implicated by the ’662 patent
`
`B.
`
`68.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`The scope and content of the prior art as of February 2007 would have
`
`broadly extended to references relating to catalytic materials that can be used to
`
`reduce nitrogen oxides. This includes references relating to the structure and
`
`properties of zeolite catalysts, the metal loading of zeolite catalysts, and the use of
`
`catalytic materials in various different processes.
`
`69.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art as of February 2007 would
`-19-
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 21 of 106
`
`

`
`
`
`have considered Zones, Maeshima, Patchett ’843, and Patchett ’514 to be within the
`
`same technical field as the subject matter set forth in the ’662 patent. Further, all of
`
`these references would be considered highly relevant prior art to the claims of the
`
`’662 patent.
`
`C.
`
`70.
`
`Zones and Maeshima Render Claims 1-11 and 30 Obvious
`
`In my opinion claims 1-11 and 30 of the ’662 patent are obvious over
`
`Zones and Maeshima.
`
`71.
`
`Zones indicates on its face that it issued March 23, 2004. Because this is
`
`more than one year before February 27, 2007, I understand that Zones is prior art to
`
`the ’662 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`72. Maeshima indicates on its face that it issued September 6, 1977. Because
`
`this is more than one year before February 27, 2007, I understand that Maeshima is
`
`prior art to the ’662 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`73. While Zones served as a basis of rejection both during prosecution and
`
`reexamination of the ’662 patent, Maeshima is not listed on the face of the ’662 patent
`
`as a “Reference[] Cited.” Maeshima also does not appear to have been cited during
`
`reexamination. As a result, I understand that the combination of Zones and
`
`Maeshima was not considered by the examiner.
`
`74.
`
`Zones relates to “aluminosilicate” zeolites, including

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket