1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` J. Lercher
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`------------------------------------
`UMICORE AG & CO., KG,
` Petitioner, Case IPR2015-01121
` Patent 7,601,662
` vs.
`BASF CORPORATION,
` Patent Owner.
`------------------------------------
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
` Petitioner, Case IPR2015-01123
` Patent 8,404,203 B2
` vs.
`BASF CORPORATION,
` Patent Owner.
`------------------------------------
` (Caption Contined on Next Page)
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHANNES LERCHER
` New York, New York
` Monday, January 18, 2016
`
`Reported by:
`THOMAS A. FERNICOLA, RPR
`JOB NO. 102317
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Exhibit 2027.001
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` J. Lercher
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
` Attorneys for Plaintiffs
` 51 West 52nd Street
` New York, New York
` BY: ELIZABETH GARDNER, ESQ.
`
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1300 Eye Street, NW
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: ANISH DESAI, ESQ.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Dr. Stefan Retzon, Umicore.
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` J. Lercher
`------------------------------------
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`
` Petitioner, Case IPR2015-01124
` Patent 8,404,203 B2
` vs.
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`
` Patent Owner.
`------------------------------------
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`
` Petitioner, Case IPR2015-01125
` Patent 7,601,662
` vs.
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`
` Patent Owner.
`------------------------------------
`
` Monday, January 18, 2016
` 9:00 a.m.
`
` DEPOSITION of JOHANNES LERCHER, held at
` the Law Offices of Orrick, Herrington &
` Sutcliffe, LLP, 51 West 52nd Street, New York,
` New York, before Thomas A. Fernicola, a
` Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
` Public of the State of New York.
`
`Page 4
`
` J. Lercher
`J O H A N N E S L E R C H E R,
`called as a witness, having been duly sworn by a
`Notary Public, was examined and testified as
`follows:
`BY THE REPORTER:
` Q Please state your full name and
` address for the record.
` A Johannes Lercher,
` Adabert-Stifter-Street, 39 85521 Ottobrunm,
` Germany.
`
`BY MR. DESAI:
` Q I'll just introduce myself. I'm
` Anish Desai here from Weil, Gotshal, on behalf
` of BASF Corporation.
` MS. GARDNER: I'm Elizabeth Gardner,
` representing Umicore.
` MR. RETZON: I'm Stefan Retzon, an
` attorney at Umicore.
`BY MR. DESAI:
` Q Good morning.
` Where are you currently employed,
` Dr. Lercher?
` A I'm currently employed by The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 5
`
` J. Lercher
`Technische Universitaet Muenchen.
` Q And you currently reside in Germany?
` A I do currently reside in Germany.
` Q Have you ever been deposed before?
` A Deposed in a U.S. Court, no; in this
`setting, yes.
` Q Why don't I just give you a quick
`sort of rundown on the basics.
` Everything we're going to be saying
`today is being record by the court reporter,
`so it is important that you and I don't talk
`over each other.
` I'll do my best to let you finish
`your answer before I start my next question,
`and if you would also do your best to wait
`until I've completed my question before you
`start answering.
` The other thing is because
`everything is being recorded, you'll have to
`give verbal answers to questions. So try and
`avoid nodding your head and shaking your head
`and stick with yesses and nos and anything in
`between.
` If you want to take a break, just
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Exhibit 2027.002
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
` J. Lercher
`let me know, we'll take a break.
` A I will.
` Q And, of course, if any question I
`ask is not clear to you, please let me know,
`and I'll do my best to rephrase the question.
` A Thank you.
` Q Sitting beside you are a stack of
`exhibits. The first two should be the two
`patents that are at issue, which are the '662
`patent and the '203 patent.
` A Yes.
` Q And then there are four declarations
`right there that you have submitted on behalf
`of Umicore; correct?
` A Correct.
` Q Do you want to just take a quick
`minute to just flip through them and make sure
`they're the correct copies --
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` Q -- or that you recognize them?
` A I guess I do.
` Q Okay.
` In your report, you refer to a
`series of exhibits that are also cited in the
`
`Page 8
`
` J. Lercher
`exhibits that were cited in your petition were
`given to you by Umicore's attorneys?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A Can you be more precise what you
`mean by this?
` Q Sure.
` You said that you were given a set
`of literature; correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Who gave you that set of literature?
` A I don't recall. I think, in part,
`these were transmitted by email. I guess it
`was Patrick Herman.
` Q The reason I'm asking, I'm just
`curious if there's literature that you've
`referred to and examined as part of your
`declaration that you searched for and found on
`your own?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A I told you that I'm active in
`zeolite research, therefore, I do always look
`at the literature. I may have come across, I
`may have read papers. For the arguments that
`I'm making, that literature which is present
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
`
` J. Lercher
`petition that was filed by Umicore. They were
`Exhibits 1002 through 1016.
` And I'm just curious if there are
`any other documents that you relied on in
`forming your opinions that are not cited as
`exhibits?
` A When forming an opinion, you have a
`standard state of knowledge that you have in
`your profession. So I would not recall, but I
`would also not exclude any documents that I
`may have considered when forming that opinion,
`and we may discuss this.
` Q Sitting here right now, can you
`think of any specific document that you used
`to form your opinions but did not cite as an
`exhibit to your report?
` A I would not recall at present.
` Q Of the exhibits that were cited in
`your declaration, how were they selected, the
`patents and publications?
` A I have been given a set of
`literature to consider, and I have read the
`literature and I have evaluated them.
` Q So is it fair to say that all the
`
`Page 9
`
` J. Lercher
`here suffices.
` Q You were aware of the recent history
`of the '662 patent; correct?
` A I am aware.
` Q You were retained by Johnson Matthey
`in that re-examination to provide an expert
`opinion regarding the '662 patent; correct?
` A I have been retained by
`Johnson Matthey to provide an expert opinion
`on specific selected questions from
`Johnson Matthey.
` Q In the reexamination of the '662
`patent, you submitted at least two
`declarations; is that right?
` A That is correct.
` Q How much total compensation did you
`receive from Johnson Matthey in that matter?
` A I'm sorry, I don't recall.
` Q How much have you been compensated
`to date by Umicore in this matter?
` A To date, nothing because I have not
`billed.
` Q Okay.
` Approximately how many hours have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2027.003
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
` J. Lercher
`you spent working on this matter for Umicore?
` A Working on this matter,
`approximately close to a hundred.
` Q And I think you -- probably in your
`report, do you have an hourly rate?
` A Yes. 400 euros.
` Q Is that your standard hourly rate?
` A That's my standard hourly rate.
` Q Aside from the consulting
`relationship you have with Umicore with
`respect to these IPRs, are you doing any other
`work for Umicore at present?
` A No.
` Q Have you in the past done any work
`for Umicore?
` A No.
` Q Do you receive any funding from
`Umicore?
` A No.
` Q So aside from the compensation
`you've received or will receive from Umicore
`in this matter, you have not previously
`received any compensation from Umicore?
` A No.
`
`Page 12
`
` J. Lercher
`diesel engine?
` A Can you be a little more precise in
`this? Do you mean whether I personally was
`aware by 2007 or whether I'm aware of
`technology prior to 2007?
` Q I think sitting here today, I'm
`asking if you were aware of what was going on
`before 2007.
` A I am aware today of what's going on
`before 2007.
` Q So then prior to 2007, what types of
`catalysts had been used for SCR of nitrogen
`oxides in a diesel engine?
` A At that point the technology was in
`a state of emergence. It has been developed,
`but around this time you had three classes of
`catalysts that were considered and under
`development: One was the vanadium based
`materials mostly considered for trucks which
`were derived from technology that were -- let
`me take a step -- that were derived from
`technology and exhaust emission of stationary
`sources.
` Let me take a step back and be a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 11
`
` J. Lercher
` Q That might be confusing.
` You mean that you have not received
`any compensation?
` A I mean I have not received any
`compensation.
` Q Do you currently have an existing
`consulting relationship with Johnson Matthey?
` A No.
` Q Are you currently receiving any
`compensation from Johnson Matthey?
` A No.
` Q The '662 patent was filed on
`February 27, 2008, and there's a provisional
`application that was filed a year before on
`February 27, 2007; correct?
` A Yes.
` Q So when I refer to the filing date
`of the '662 patent, I'll be referring to the
`2007 date.
` A Yes.
` Q Prior to the filing date of the '662
`patent, are you aware of what types of
`catalysts had been used for the selective
`catalytic reductions of nitrogen oxides in a
`
`Page 13
`
` J. Lercher
`little bit more precise.
` We have to differentiate in that
`technology from exhaust catalysis for auto
`engines and exhaust catalysis for diesel
`engines or for engines which were operating
`under lean-burn conditions.
` If I confine this to lean-burn
`conditions for the time being, because I think
`this is where we are addressing the discussion
`in the deposition today, there were these
`three technologies that I'm referring, so I'm
`leaving out the classic three-way catalysts
`under those conditions.
` Now, in addition to the vanadium,
`there was discussion on hydrocarbon selective
`reduction using zeolite catalysts with
`transition metal oxides.
` There was discussion about NOX
`reduction using ammonia with transition metal
`loaded zeolites, and there was discussion
`about storing NOX intermittently or storing
`NOX and reducing the storage materials
`intermittently as a storage reduction catalyst
`technology.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2027.004
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
` J. Lercher
` So, in total, it may have been four
`different types of technologies that were
`considered.
` Q So to summarize your answer a bit,
`you identified four technologies, which were
`the vanadium based, the hydrocarbon with metal
`exchange zeolites, NOX with ammonia using
`metal exchange zeolites, and storage based --
` A Storage reduction-based catalysis.
` Q Which of those four had been used
`commercially before 2007?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A Can you be more precise on this one?
` Q What don't you understand about my
`question?
` A When you say which technology has
`been used commercially under those conditions,
`the word "commercially" could have several
`meanings. It could mean that it was in a
`commercial development stage. It could mean
`it was commercially deployed.
` To be honest, by 2007, I am a
`researcher who looks at fundamental aspects,
`so I would not really follow in detail which
`
`Page 16
`
` J. Lercher
` A Stationary are the exhaust produced
`by a power plant in burning fossil fuel or
`renewable fuels, any carbon based fuels.
` Q And you've been sort of
`distinguishing exhaust treatment from
`stationary sources from exhaust treatment in
`mobile applications?
` A Yes, I do.
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` Q Would you agree that before 2007, it
`was well known that the hydrothermal stability
`of zeolites was an obstacle to their use in
`diesel engines?
` A The hydrothermal stability of
`zeolites is always an obstacle for every
`implementation. It's always a challenge.
`Whether it's surfaces or not depends on the
`zeolite material. It has been always cited to
`be a problem.
` Q Are you aware of any specific
`publications to cite hydrothermal stability of
`zeolites as an obstacle to their use in diesel
`engines prior to 2007?
` A Prior to 2007, one of the easiest
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15
`
` J. Lercher
`of the technology was composed at which time.
` Q I'll try my question to be more
`precise. And if you don't know, you can say
`you don't know.
` Which of those four technologies had
`been commercially deployed by 2007?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` Q If you know.
` A Honestly, I'm not sure of which one
`has been deployed to which extent.
` Q Okay.
` The vanadium-based catalyst, do you
`know if that had been commercially deployed
`prior to 2007?
` A There has been in stationary
`sources, yes, of course.
` In automobiles -- for large trucks,
`I know it was considered seriously, and I
`think it was implemented in some models for
`heavy trucks by MIN in Germany.
` Q Now, you've used the word
`"stationary" a few times, and I probably
`should ask you about that. What do you mean
`by "stationary"?
`
`Page 17
`
` J. Lercher
`sources would be, for example, reviewed by
`Centi on NOX reduction.
` Q I think I have a copy of that. This
`will be Exhibit 2012.
` A Thank you.
` Q Is this the paper you were referring
`to?
` A It is the paper that I'm referring
`to, that you're referring to.
` Q At the bottom, there's a label with
`an Exhibit 2012 and then a dot?
` A Yes.
` Q Why don't you go to page, it's .005.
` A Yes.
` Q And then at the bottom of the first
`paragraph, there's a sentence that starts --
`it's sort of like 3/4 of the way down,
`"Indeed." Do you see that? "Indeed several
`unresolved problems limit..."
` A "Indeed several unresolved problems
`limit the outlook for successful use of
`zeolites in automotive converters."
` Q The first one that is listed is
`hydrothermal stability; correct?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2027.005
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
` J. Lercher
` A Yes, correct.
` Q Then at the end of the paragraph, it
`says, "Low hydrothermal stability is the more
`critical weakness of copper containing
`zeolites"; correct?
` A Correct.
` Q Do you disagree with these
`conclusions here?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A In '95, this was the opinion of
`Centi.
` Q Do you disagree with it?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A For 1995, I do not disagree with
`this.
` Q Okay.
` At what point in time would you say
`that you would disagree with this statement?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A Can you tell me a little bit more
`what you mean by what point in time? I mean,
`do you mean is there a particular year?
` Q Yes.
` A Well, science doesn't occur in this
`
`Page 20
`
` J. Lercher
`automotive catalysis, it's an application
`problem; so, therefore, the fundamental works
`addressing hydrothermal stability were done in
`material science and not by trial and error in
`automotive catalysis.
` I'll give you an example. One of
`those examples where it was tried would have
`been Braggs' paper on increasing
`silica/aluminum ratios, or as it's the lingo
`here, SAR, by a chemical method.
` Q So going back to my question about
`publications that refer to the problem of
`hydrothermal stability of zeolites, we've
`identified one publication that discusses this
`problem, the Centi paper?
` A Yes.
` Q And I believe you said you are aware
`of other papers?
` A I am aware of other publications. I
`cannot recall them. I usually use a
`literature database. This is not the way I
`work on this.
` Q I'm not testing you --
` A -- on how much literature, I know.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
`
` J. Lercher
`way. Science occurs as a series of
`developments and inventions.
` And as you moved to -- and I said
`hydrothermal stability is a critical issue for
`a lot of catalysis, and, therefore, it was in
`focus in stabilization of zeolites by
`synthetic and post-synthetic means were
`investigated and were continuously improved
`throughout the time.
` Q Okay.
` A Not only for exhaustive catalysis,
`it's a general problem.
` Q Are you aware of any other
`publications that discuss the specific problem
`of hydrothermal stability of zeolites in the
`automotive application?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A Yes, I am aware of other
`publications. It would be difficult to relate
`to material only related to automotive
`applications, and let me explain why.
` This has its reason as the
`development of hydrothermal stability was a
`materials problem, and when you apply it to
`
`Page 21
`
` J. Lercher
` Q Exactly.
` Did you refer to any of those papers
`in your declarations?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A When you say "any of these papers,"
`at which point how do you mean this? What do
`you mean specifically in here?
` Q I guess my specific question is, is
`there any discussion of any publications that
`refer to the problem of hydrothermal stability
`of zeolites with respect to using them in
`automotive converters?
` A If you take the paper of Zones, for
`example, then he shows that he is able to
`synthesize a zeolite with a higher SAR ratio
`in chabazite form that would expectedly give
`you a higher hydrothermal stability.
` Q We'll come back to the Zones patent
`in a few minutes.
` A Good.
` Q Besides the Zones patent, are there
`any other publications or patents that you
`discuss in your declaration that refer to the
`problem of hydrothermal stability of zeolites
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2027.006
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
` J. Lercher
`when used in the automotive application?
` A What I'm using here was a comparison
`between Zones and the patent of Maeshima where
`clearly this is in a range where hydrothermal
`stability may have been a problem.
` Q I feel like you're not really
`answering the question I'm asking, so I'll try
`it again.
` A Try it again, please.
` Q You mentioned the Zones patent in
`response to my earlier question. I said
`besides the Zones patent, are there any other
`publications or patents that you discuss in
`your declaration that specifically refer to
`the problem of hydrothermal stability of
`zeolites when used in the automotive
`application?
` MS. GARDNER: I don't want to
` interject here. Which declaration are you
` referring to? Because he's got one in
` from of him. Are you talking about all of
` them?
` MR. DESAI: Counsel, there is
` actually some very specific rules in the
`
`Page 24
`
` J. Lercher
` hour for this one, one hour for that one.
` MS. GARDNER: And we're happy to do
` it that way. That was my understanding.
` That's why when you're referring to a
` single declaration, I just ask that you be
` specific.
` If you're referring to all of them
` collectively, refer to all declarations --
` MR. DESAI: Fair enough. I think
` they're quite similar. I don't think
` there's a whole mass of difference between
` them, but anyway...
` A Going through the list that's
`mentioned here, I would say that Ishihara
`points to a thermostable material; Jung points
`to a thermostable material and the effect of
`water treatment, and, of course, the
`declaration of Schutze at the end, but this is
`not a paper in that classic sense.
` The Dedecek paper on citing of the
`copper does treat the location of copper, but
`it does not specifically work on any
`application or application parts.
` Q We've used the word "hydrothermal
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 23
`
` J. Lercher
` PTAB about speaking objections, including
` this type of speaking objection.
` MS. GARDNER: This is not a speaking
` objections.
` MR. DESAI: It is. I can actually
` point to a specific opinion from the PTAB
` about this.
` MS. GARDNER: Could we just take a
` break here? Because we have four IPRs
` going on, and we haven't discuss the rules
` for how you're dividing up the deposition
` between those four IPRs.
` MR. DESAI: I'm on the first one.
` MS. GARDNER: Okay.
` A Great, which is numbered?
` Q The one in your hand. I think it's
`the first one, 1121.
` A 1121. It was not in my hand. Okay.
` MR. DESAI: If you want to take a
` break to discuss the rules, I'm happy to
` do that.
` I consider this deposition to be
` applicable to all four of the petitions.
` I don't think I need to split it up one
`
`Page 25
`
` J. Lercher
`stability" a few times. And I think in the
`context of automotive engines is how I've been
`using it.
` A Yes.
` Q Is there a particular temperature
`range that people in the art would understand
`to refer to when you're talking about
`hydrothermal stability?
` A Generally not.
` Q In the '662 patent, I believe it
`refers to the problem being with temperatures
`over 500 degrees Celsius; is that right?
` A The process of hydrothermal
`stability refers in that particular sense to
`the removal of aluminum from lattice. That is
`a process which requires overcoming a free
`energy in order to release the aluminum with
`the aid of water, and this is why we always
`call it hydrothermal.
` The fact that it is a free energy
`intermittently points to the fact that the
`dependence of the rate in which you remove
`something depends exponentially on the
`temperature. So, therefore, you have an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2027.007
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
` J. Lercher
`exponential increase in the rate in which you
`remove aluminum.
` That temperature dependency makes a
`single temperature or a single threshold of a
`temperature inadequate as a measure for where
`it's stable and where it's not stable.
` This is a continuous process on some
`of the levels. It's not possible to measure
`it anymore. In some levels, it will be
`exceedingly fast.
` Q Okay.
` For the specific problem of
`hydrothermal stability of zeolites in the
`automotive application, is there a temperature
`range where this becomes a problem, the
`hydrothermal stability? Is it over
`200 degrees Celsius, or 300, 400? Can you
`give your opinion on that?
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A I know it's not well defined, but I
`forego this in sake of moving forward.
` As I said, it depends on what you
`would call in practice a time budget. It
`means how long a zeolite is being exposed
`
`Page 28
`
` J. Lercher
` You can imagine that if you have a
`large concentration of aluminum, that
`structure cannot be stable because too many
`bricks are missing out of a building. So it
`also depends at which temperature the overall
`structure is still stable or not stable.
` Q Okay. So to put that into a
`laymen's terms --
` A Two laymen are talking to each
`other, don't worry.
` Q I don't think so.
` Essentially what you're describing
`is that when the zeolite is exposed to higher
`temperatures in a water environment --
` A Yes.
` Q -- aluminum is being removed?
` A Aluminum is being removed until a
`certain degree, and I can go on. I'll be sure
`from layman to layman I can tell you what the
`specifics are in this.
` Q And this removal of the aluminum
`essentially can result in destabilization of
`the zeolite?
` A It can result in destabilization of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`
` J. Lercher
`under practical conditions to a particular
`temperature.
` It depends. The time budget is not
`an absolute time. It is an exponential
`dependence of the time plus the temperature at
`which you expose to this.
` In practice, everything beyond
`400 degrees will be a problem over the times
`that you have in such a material.
` Q So I guess what you're trying to say
`is that hydrothermal stability issues can
`occur for very high temperatures in a short
`period of time or moderately high temperatures
`at a longer period of time; correct?
` A It may have the same net effect on
`the substance. And when we talk about
`stability, there's another criterion that you
`have to consider.
` Now, I have been teaching you that
`it's the aluminum removal which is time
`dependent, but a zeolite is a tectosilicate.
`That means it's a material which contains a
`network of silicon oxygen bonds at which at
`some point aluminum is being inserted.
`
`Page 29
`
` J. Lercher
`the zeolite and results in the removal of an
`ion exchange position or an ion exchange
`capacity of that zeolite.
` Q Dr. Lercher, what is the first
`publication you're aware of that recognized
`the potential of copper chabazite for the SCR
`of nitrogen oxides in a diesel engine?
` A If I recall, the talk about
`chabazite as a NOX catalyst was done very
`early on, very early on in a more collective
`sense because chabazite was considered to be a
`very stable or relatively stable natural
`deposit in zeolite, very early on, as I talk,
`late '80s, early '90s.
` Certainly, it was substantiated with
`the paper by Ishihara where he used the
`chabazite structure to do a related form of
`NOX removal. That's mid '90s.
` The problem at that point was that
`simply also production capacity for SAPO-34
`and others were not available, so I do not
`know what industry was doing. I'm not aware
`of this, but it was in the public discussion
`around between early and mid '90s.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2027.008
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
` J. Lercher
` Q Okay.
` So it's your opinion, at least
`sitting here today, the first publication that
`you can identify that recognized a potential
`of copper chabazite for the SCR of nitrogen
`oxides in a diesel engine was the Ishihara
`paper?
` A No, that's not what I said. You
`have the early on mentioning of the chabazite
`in Maeshima which is earlier than the mid
`'90s. I was saying in academic literature it
`popped up between the mid to early to mid
`'90s.
` Q So when I was saying the word
`"publication," I'm not limiting it to a
`particular kind of publication.
` A That's why I have clarified this.
` Q So, then, it's your opinion that the
`Maeshima patent recognizes the potential of
`copper chabazite for the SCR of NOX in a
`diesel engine?
` A It recognizes the potential for NOX
`removal.
` Q But not in a diesel engine?
`
`Page 32
`
` J. Lercher
` Q Okay.
` What's a flue gas system?
` A A flue gas is anything that comes
`out of something where it burns.
` Q So does Maeshima refer to using SCR
`of NOX in a power plant?
` A He doesn't constrain anything. He
`does not say anything about this.
` Q Have you read Maeshima?
` A Yes, I do. The fact that he makes
`references to particular features does not
`exclude or include anything.
` Q Fair enough.
` So in Column 2, when he refers to
`flue gas from the combustion furnace of power
`plants, that doesn't refer to a power plant to
`you?
` MS. GARDNER: I object to the form.
` Q So, in fact, Maeshima does specify
`the system in which the SCR of NOX is being
`used?
` A I cannot read this from his claims.
` Q I'm not talking about the claims.
`I'm talking about Column 2, does he refer to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 31
`
` J. Lercher
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` A It does not exclude it in a diesel
`engine. It does not exclude it to any
`particular form.
` Q So it's your opinion that the
`Maeshima patent doesn't actually provide a
`particular form of the NOX removal?
` A Let me look at the information.
` MS. GARDNER: Objection to form.
` Q Here you go.
` A Thank you so much.
` Q And that's Exhibit 1002.
` A As much as I had assumed it, it does
`not limit itself to any particular form. It
`says: "The invention relates to a process for
`reducing the concentration of nitrogen oxides
`contained in a gaseous mixture."
` And if I go back to the claims, it's
`"a process of reducing the concentration of
`nitrogen oxides in a gaseous mixture which
`comprises," and then he looks to the different
`ways of contacting, and he specifies the
`temperature percentage in the metal
`components.
`
`Page 33
`
` J. Lercher
`using the SCR system in a stationary source
`such as a power plant, Column 2 around
`line 10?
` A That is indeed something which is
`very specific.
` Q And nowhere in this patent does he
`refer to using an SCR of NOX in a diesel
`engine; correct?
` A I am not aware.
` Q I'm going to hand you the Zones
`patent as well --
` A Thank you.
` Q -- which is Exhibit 1004.
` Would you agree that Zones does not
`provide any specific teaching about using a
`copper chabazite for the selective catalytic
`reduction of nitrogen oxides in the presence
`of ammonia?
` A Is this not suggestive? Can you
`rephrase your question?
` Q Do you agree that Zones does not
`provide any specific teaching about the use of
`a copper