IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`
`Examiner: DIAMOND, ALAN D
`
`Group Art Unit: 3991
`
`Confirmation No:
`
`2755
`
`) .
`
`) :
`
`)
`'
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`'
`
`In Inter Partes Reexamination of:
`
`BULL ET AL.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`Issued: October 13, 2009
`
`For:
`
`COPPER CHA
`ZEOLITE CATALYSTS
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313—1450
`
`PATENT OWNER'S AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.941
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a November 16, 2010 Office Action
`
`in connection with the above—identified inter partes reexamination proceeding. The November 16,
`
`2010 Office Action set a two (2) month period for filing a response. On December 14, 2010, Patent
`
`Owner petitioned for a one (1) month extension of time. On December 21, 2010, the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office granted Patent Owner's petition. Accordingly, a response to the
`
`November 16, 2010 Office Action is now due on February 16, 2011, and this Amendment is being
`
`timely filed.
`
`Amendments to the Abstract begin on page 5.
`
`Amendments to the Specification begin on page 6.
`
`Amendments to the Drawing begin on page 7.
`
`Amendments to the Claims begin on page 8.
`
`The Patent Owner's Arguments begin on page 16.
`
`Please amend the subject patent as follows.
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 1 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 1 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`W
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE ABSTRACT ..................................................... 5
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION ............................................................. 6
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAWINGS ..................................................................... 7
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS ........................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 37 CPR. § 1.530(e) ................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Amendment of Claims Herein .......................................................................... 15
`
`Support for Amended Claims and New Claims ................................................ 15
`
`Claims Pending and Under Review in this Proceeding .................................... 16
`
`VI.
`
`DUTY OF DISCLOSURE UNDER 37 CPR. § 1.555(a) ........................................... 17
`
`VII.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS ............................................. 17
`
`A.
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D.
`
`E
`
`Summary of Rejections ..................................................................................... 17
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments With Respect to Rejections — Introduction ............ 18
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ...................................................................... 19
`
`Level of Skill in the Art .................................................................................... 21
`
`Arguments for Each Ground of Rejection ........................................................ 21
`
`1. Rejection of Claim 1 Over Yuen .................................................................. 22
`
`a) Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................................................... 22
`
`i. No Reasons Given As to Why Yuen Example 3 is of
`Interest ....................................................................................... 22
`
`ii. Yuen Incorporates by Reference a Three—Way Catalytic
`Process ...................................................................................... 23
`
`b) Differences Between the Art and the Claimed Invention ................. 24
`
`i. Yuen/Ritscher Does Not Teach Cu/Al Ratio of Claim 1 ....... 24
`
`ii. No Reasons are Provided to Modify Yuen’s Example 3 ...... 24
`
`iii. Yuen/Ritscher Teaches Away ............................................. 25
`
`c) Conclusion—Claim 1 is Not Obvious Over Yuen .............................. 25
`
`2. Rejection of Claims 1—11 Over Zones in View of Ishihara, as Evidenced
`by the Centi Declaration ................................................................................... 26
`
`a) Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................................................... 26
`
`i. Zones ...................................................................................... 26
`
`a. Scope and Content of Zones ..................................... 27
`
`0 Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides .................................. 27
`
`0 Metals and Copper Content ...................................... 28
`2
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 2 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 2 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`b. Scope and Content of Ishihara .................................. 29
`
`b) Differences Between Art and Claimed Invention ............................. 29
`
`i. Differences from Claims l—ll Generally ............................... 29
`
`a. Zones Does Not Disclose SCR or Copper Amount ..29
`
`b. Ishihara's SAPO—34 is Not Similar to CHA Zeolite
`
`Having Silica to Alumina Ratio Greater than 15 .......... 29
`
`c. The Reaction Chemistry And Conditions in
`Ishihara .......................................................................... 30
`
`d. Zones in View of Ishihara Does not Provide the
`
`Cu/Al Ratio in Claims l-ll .......................................... 31
`
`e. Zones in View of Ishihara Teaches Away ................ 31
`
`ii. Claims 2—11 Are Also Not Obvious over Zones in
`
`View of Ishihara ........................................................................ 32
`
`c) Conclusion— Claims l—ll Are Not Obvious Over Zones in
`View of Ishihara .................................................................................... 35
`
`3. Rejection of Claims l2—32 Over Zones in View of Ishihara, As Evidenced
`By the Centi Declaration, and Further In View of Patchett '843 ...................... 36
`
`4. Rejection of Claims 33, 34 and 36—38 over Zones In View of Ishihara, As
`Evidenced By the Centi Declaration, and Further In View of Patchett '5 14 ....39
`
`5. Rejection of Claim 35 over Zones in View of Ishihara, As Evidenced by
`The Centi Declaration, and Further In View of Tennison ................................ 40
`
`6. Rejection of Claims l—ll Are Rejected As Unpatentable Over Dedecek
`In View of Chung ............................................................................................. 40
`
`a) Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................................................... 40
`
`i. Dedecek ................................................................................. 40
`
`ii. Chung .................................................................................... 41
`
`b) Differences Between Art and Claimed Invention ............................. 41
`
`i. Differences from Claims l—ll Generally ............................... 41
`
`a. Dedecek In View of Chung Does Not Teach
`Claims l—ll ................................................................... 41
`
`b. Dedecek as Modified by Chung Teaches Away ....... 42
`
`ii. Claims 2—11 Are Also Not Obvious ...................................... 43
`
`c) Conclusion— Claims l—ll Are Not Obvious Over Dedecek in
`
`View of Chung ...................................................................................... 45
`
`7. Claims l2—32 Are Rejected as Unpatentable Over Dedecek in View of
`Chung, and Further In View of Patchett '843 ................................................... 45
`
`3
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 3 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 3 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`8. Claims 33, 34 and 36—38 Are Rejected As Unpatentable Over Dedecek In
`View of Chung, and Further In View of Patchett '5 14 ..................................... 47
`
`9. Claim 35 is Rejected as Unpatentable Over Dedecek in View of Chung,
`and Further in View of Tennison ..................................................................... 47
`
`VIII. New Claims ................................................................................................................... 47
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`Unexpected Results ....................................................................................................... 48
`
`Secondary Considerations ............................................................................................. 49
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Skepticism ......................................................................................................... 50
`
`Long—Felt Need ................................................................................................. 50
`
`Praise ................................................................................................................. 5 1
`
`X1. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 5l
`
`4
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 4 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 4 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE ABSTRACT
`
`Please amend the Abstract to correct a typographical error as follows:
`
`Zeolite catalysts and systems and methods for preparing and using
`
`zeolite catalysts haVing the CHA crystal structure are disclosed. The catalysts
`
`can be used to remove nitrogen oxides from a gaseous medium across a broad
`
`temperature
`
`range
`
`and exhibit hydrothermal
`
`stable
`
`at high reaction
`
`temperatures. The zeolite catalysts include a zeolite carrier haVing a silica to
`
`alumina ratio from about 15:1 to about 256:1 and a copper to [alumina]
`
`aluminum ratio from about 0.25: 1 to about 1:1.
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 5 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 5 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`II.
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION
`
`Please amend the specification as follows:
`
`Please amend the paragraph at column 19, lines 55—61 to correct typographical errors as
`
`follows:
`
`The slurry preparation, coating and SCR NOX evaluation were the
`
`same as outlined above for Example 1. As shown in Fig. [7] 2, Example 18
`
`exhibited the same SCR performance as Example 3 that was prepared by
`
`[twice] tw_o ion—exchanges with copper sulphate plus an incipient wetness
`
`impregnation.
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 6 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 6 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`III.
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAWINGS
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(d)(3), Patent Owner submits an annotated sheet of
`
`amended figures for Examiner’s approval. Figure 1A has been amended. Figure 1A as originally
`
`filed contained incorrect legends for the solid diamonds and hollow diamonds. Support for this
`
`amendment can be found in Figure 1 and Table 1.
`
`In Figure l, the solid diamonds show the aged
`
`data of Example 1 (2.41%), where the 2100 C performance is 43% (as in Table 1). However, in
`
`Figure 1A, Example 1 (2.41%) should be the hollow diamonds, not the solid diamonds, because the
`
`aged performance should match Figure 1 and Table 1. Figure 1A has also now been identified as
`
`“Amended.” In the event the Examiner approves the amendments in Fig. 1A, Patent Owner has
`
`also submitted an amended sheet showing the correction. Copies of the annotated and amended
`
`sheets will be sent by Express Mail to the Central Reexamination Unit so that the annotated sheet
`
`shows the proposed amendments in red in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(d)(3).
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 7 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 7 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`IV.
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS
`
`1. (original) A catalyst comprising: a zeolite having the CHA crystal structure and a mole ratio of
`
`silica to alumina greater than about 15 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum exceeding about
`
`0.25.
`
`2. (original) The catalyst of claim 1, wherein the mole ratio of silica to alumina is from about 15 to
`
`about 256 and the atomic ratio of copper to aluminum is from about 0.25 to about 0.50.
`
`3. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to alumina is from about 25 to
`
`about 40.
`
`4. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to alumina is about 30.
`
`5. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the atomic ratio of copper to aluminum is from about
`
`0.30 to about 0.50.
`
`6. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the atomic ratio of copper to aluminum is about 0.40.
`
`7. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to 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.
`
`8. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the mole ratio of silica to alumina is about 30 and the
`
`atomic ratio of copper to alumina is about 0.40.
`
`9. (amended) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the catalyst contains ion—exchanged copper and [an
`
`amount of] non—exchanged copper [sufficient] to [maintain] provide improved NOx conversion
`
`performance of the catalyst in an exhaust gas stream containing nitrogen oxides after hydrothermal
`
`aging of the catalyst.
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 8 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 8 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`10. (original) The catalyst of claim 9, wherein the NOx conversion performance of the catalyst at
`
`about 2000 C after aging is at least 90% of the NOx conversion performance of the catalyst at about
`
`2000 C prior to aging.
`
`11. (original) The catalyst of claim 9, wherein the catalyst contains at least about 2.00 weight
`
`percent copper oxide.
`
`12. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the catalyst is deposited on a honeycomb substrate.
`
`13. (original) The catalyst of claim 12, wherein the honeycomb substrate comprises a wall flow
`
`filter substrate.
`
`14. (original) The catalyst of claim 12, wherein the honeycomb substrate comprises a flow through
`
`substrate.
`
`15. (original) 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. (original) 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. (original) 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.
`
`18. (original) 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. (original) The catalyst of claim 18, wherein at least a portion of the wall flow substrate is coated
`
`9
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 9 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 9 of 389
`
`

`

`with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`20. (original) 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. (original) 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. (original) 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. (original) 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. (original) 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.
`
`25. (original) A catalyst article comprising a honeycomb substrate having a zeolite having the CHA
`
`crystal structure deposited on the substrate, the zeolite having a mole ratio of silica to alumina
`
`greater than about 15 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum exceeding about 0.25 and
`
`containing an amount of free copper exceeding ion—exchanged copper.
`
`
`26. (amended) The catalyst article of claim 25, wherein the free copper is present in an amount
`
`sufficient to prevent hydrothermal degradation of the nitrogen oxide conversion of the catalyst.
`
`
`27. (amended) The catalyst article of claim 26, wherein the free copper prevents hydrothermal
`
`10
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 10 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 10 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`degradation of the nitrogen oxide conversion of the catalyst upon exposure to temperatures in excess
`
`of about 800°C. and in the presence of about 10% water vapor.
`
`
`28. (amended) The catalyst article of claim 25, further comprising a binder.
`
`
`29. (amended) The catalyst article of claim 25, wherein the ion—exchanged copper is exchanged
`
`using copper acetate.
`
`30. (original) 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 NOx in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`31. (original) An exhaust gas treatment system comprising an exhaust gas stream containing
`
`ammonia and a catalyst in accordance with claim 2 effective for destroying at least a portion of the
`
`ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`32. (original) The catalyst of claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises a high efficiency open cell
`
`foam filter.
`
`33. (original) An exhaust gas treatment system comprising the catalyst of claim 2 and further
`
`comprising a catalyzed soot filter.
`
`34. (original) The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 33, wherein said catalyzed soot filter is
`
`upstream of said catalyst.
`
`35. (original) The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 33, wherein said catalyzed soot filter is
`
`downstream of said catalyst.
`
`36. (original) The exhaust gas treatment system of claim 33, further comprising a diesel oxidation
`
`catalyst.
`
`ll
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 11 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 11 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`37. (original) 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. (original) 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. new
`A catal st article com risin a metallic or ceramic substrate havin de osited thereon
`
`a zeolite having the CHA crystal structure deposited on the substrate, the zeolite having a mole ratio
`
`of silica to alumina greater than about 15 and an atomic ratio of copper to aluminum egual to or
`
`exceeding about 0.25, the zeolite exhibiting improved low temperature NOx conversion after
`
`hydrothermal aging compared to Cu Beta zeolite hydrothermally aged under the same conditions.
`
`40. {new} The catalyst article of claim 39, wherein the mole ratio of silica to alumina is from about
`
`15 to about 50 and the atomic ratio of copper to aluminum is in the range of about 0.25 to about 1.
`
`41. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 39 wherein the mole ratio of silica to alumina is from
`
`about 25 to about 40.
`
`42. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 40 wherein the atomic ratio of co
`
`er to aluminum is
`
`from about 0.25 to about 0.50.
`
`
`43. new
`The catal st article of claim 39 wherein the zeolite is resistant to oisonin b lon
`
`chain hydrocarbons.
`
`44. new
`
`The catal st of claim 3 wherein the catal st is de osited on a hone comb wall flow
`
`filter substrate to provide a catalyst article.
`
`45. new
`
`The catal st of claim 3 wherein the catal st is de osited on a hone comb flow
`
`through substrate to provide a catalyst article.
`
`12
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1 109
`Page 12 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 12 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`46. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 45 wherein at least a ortion of the flow throu h
`
`substrate is coated with CuCHA adapted to reduce oxides of nitrogen contained in a gas stream
`
`flowing through the substrate.
`
`47. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 46 wherein at least a ortion of the flow throu h
`
`substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`48. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 45 wherein at least a ortion of the flow throu h
`
`substrate is coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`49. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 44 wherein at least a ortion of the wall flow substrate is
`
`coated with CuCHA adapted to reduce oxides of nitrogen contained in a gas stream flowing through
`
`the substrate.
`
`50. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 49 wherein at least a ortion of the wall flow substrate is
`
`coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`5 1. new
`
`The catal st article of claim 44 wherein at least a ortion of the wall flow substrate is
`
`coated with Pt and CuCHA adapted to oxidize ammonia in the exhaust gas stream.
`
`52. new
`
`An exhaust as treatment s stem com risin the catal st article of claim 46 dis osed
`
`downstream from a diesel engine and an injector that adds a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from
`
`the engine.
`
`53. new
`
`An exhaust as treatment s stem com risin the catal st article of claim 48 dis osed
`
`downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from
`
`the engine.
`
`54. new
`
`An exhaust as treatment s stem com risin the catal st article of claim 49 dis osed
`
`l3
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 13 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 13 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from
`
`the engine.
`
`55. new
`
`An exhaust as treatment s stem com risin the catal st article of claim 51 dis osed
`
`downstream from a diesel engine and an injector to add a reductant to an exhaust gas stream from
`
`the engine.
`
`14
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1 109
`Page 14 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 14 of 389
`
`

`

`V.
`
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`1.530 e
`
`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`A.
`
`Amendment of claims herein
`
`Patent Owner has, by this Amendment, amended claims 25—29 of US. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`(the '662 patent) as issued and added claims 39 to55.
`
`Specifically, the claims are modified as follows:
`
`a. Claim 9 has been amended to remove the phrase "an amount of" and the word
`
`"sufficient", and the phrase "provide improved" has been substituted for the word
`
`"maintain";
`
`b.
`
`the term "article" as been inserted in claims 26—29 to provide proper reference to
`
`independent claim 25; and
`
`c. new claims 39—55 have been added.
`
`B.
`
`Support for amended and new claims
`
`Support for the amendment to claim 9 can be found at column 5, lines 38—52 of the '662
`
`patent.
`
`Support for the amendment to claims 26—29 can be found at claim 25 of the original
`
`application and at col. 2, line 56 to col. 3, line 2 of the '662 patent.
`
`Support for new claim 39 can be found at least at col. 6, lines 24—30 and col. 2, lines 9—12 of
`
`the '662 patent and col. 14, lines 17—34 (Table 1).
`
`Support for new claim 40 can be found in the Abstract.
`
`Support for new claim 41 can be found at col. 14, lines 58—67.
`
`Support for new claim 42 can be found at col. 2, lines 9—l5.
`
`Support for new claim 43 can be found at col. 15, line 63, through col. 16, line 2.
`
`Support for new claim 44 can be found at col. 6, lines 55—64.
`
`Support for new claim 45 can be found at col.7, lines 8—1 1.
`
`Support for new claim 46 can be found at col. 2, lines 41—44.
`
`Support for new claims 47 and 48 can be found at col. 2, lines 44—48.
`
`Support for new claim 49 can be found at col. 2, lines 49—52.
`
`Support for new claims 50—5 1 can be found at col. 2, lines 52—55.
`
`Support for new claims 52—54 can be found at col. 22, lines l—54.
`l5
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 15 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 15 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`Support for new claim 55 can be found at col. 22, lines l—30.
`
`C.
`
`Claims Pending and Under Review in this Proceeding
`
`After entry of this Amendment, claims l—55 are pending and under reexamination.
`
`l6
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 16 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 16 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`VI.
`
`Duty of Disclosure Under 37 C.F.R. §1.555132
`
`In accordance with the duty under 37 C.F.R. § l.555(a), Patent Owner directs the Examiner's
`
`attention to the references listed n the Information Disclosure Statement which is being filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`VII.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
`
`The Abstract has been amended to correct a typographical error. The specification
`
`throughout refers to copper to aluminum ratio, not copper to alumina ratio.
`
`The Specification at the paragraph at column 19, lines 55—61 of the '662 patent has been
`
`amended to correct typographical errors, namely reference to the wrong Figure and a grammatical
`
`error.
`
`The Drawings have also been amended to correct the error in Figure 1A, which is fully
`
`supported by the Specification at Table l and Figure l.
`
`A. Summary of Rejections
`
`Patent Owner makes this response to the Office Action of November 16, 2010, in which:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1 is rejected as unpatentable over Yuen.
`
`Claims l—ll are rejected as unpatentable over Zones in View of Ishihara, as eVidenced
`
`by the Centi Declaration.
`
`Claims 12—32 are rejected as unpatentable over Zones in View of Ishihara, as
`
`eVidenced by the Centi Declaration, and further in View of Patchett '843.
`
`Claims 33, 34 and 36—38 are rejected as unpatentable over Zones in View of Ishihara,
`
`as eVidenced by the Centi Declaration, and further in View of Patchett '5 l4.
`
`Claim 35 is rejected as unpatentable over Zones in View of Ishihara, as eVidenced by
`
`the Centi Declaration, and further in View of Tennison.
`
`Claims l—ll are rejected as unpatentable over Dedecek in View of Chung.
`
`Claims 12—32 are rejected as unpatentable over Dedecek in View of Chung, and
`
`further in View of Patchett '843.
`
`Claims 33, 34 and 36—38 are rejected as unpatentable over Dedecek in View of Chung,
`
`and further in View of Patchett '5 l4.
`
`l7
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1 109
`Page 17 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 17 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`9.
`
`Claim 35 is rejected as unpatentable over Dedecek in view of Chung, and further in
`
`view of Tennison.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully traverses all these rejections for the reasons set forth below and
`
`requests that they be withdrawn. Further, new claims 39—55 are added, and are submitted to be
`
`allowable over the cited references. Specification support for each limitation of each new claim is
`
`indicated as shown in section IV. B. above.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments With Respect to Rejections - Introduction
`
`The claimed invention pertains to a select zeolite having a specified crystal structure (CHA),
`
`silica to alumina molar ratio, and copper to aluminum atomic ratio, useful for the selective catalytic
`
`reduction (SCR) of oxides of nitrogen in exhaust gas streams such as diesel engine exhaust.
`
`(the
`
`'662 patent, col. 1, lines 13—18, 5 8—61). Prior to the claimed invention, a large number of metal—
`
`promoted zeolites had been proposed in the patent and scientific literature, but each of the proposed
`
`materials suffered from one or both of the following defects: (1) poor conversion of oxides of
`
`nitrogen at low temperatures, for example 3500 C and lower; and (2) poor hydrothermal stability
`
`marked by a significant decline in catalytic activity in the conversion of oxides of nitrogen by SCR.
`
`At the time of the invention in early 2007, there was a compelling, unsolved need to provide a
`
`material that would provide conversion of oxides of nitrogen at low temperatures and retention of
`
`SCR catalytic activity after hydrothermal aging at temperatures in excess of 6500 C. See, Haller
`
`Decl. (H 10; the '662 patent, col. 1, lines 35—46, col. 6, lines 6—21; Olson Decl., (fl 7; Roth Decl. (fl 9. It
`
`is important to note that the literature may refer to hydrothermal stability with reference to retention
`
`of crystallinity of a crystalline material and/or retention of surface area, however, as used in the '662
`
`patent, hydrothermal stability refers to maintenance of SCR catalytic activity after hydrothermal
`
`aging. See, Haller Decl. (H 10; the '662 patent, col. 14, lines 34—36.
`
`At the time of the invention, zeolites could be defined by nearly 200 framework types and
`
`thousands of zeolites existed. A near infinite number of candidate materials, therefore, was available
`
`to a skilled artisan, considering the number of parameters to be selected and varied including:
`
`structure type; pore size; silica to alumina ratio; promoter metals such as iron, cobalt, copper, nickel,
`
`cerium and others; amount of promoter metal; synthesis conditions; and ion exchange processes
`
`including conditions and type of salt to use. See, Haller Decl. (H 7, 20. While studies of certain
`
`zeolites such as ZSM—5 have indicated that increased silica to alumina ratio imparts greater
`
`18
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 18 of 389
`
`Umicore AG & Co. KG
`Exhibit 1109
`Page 18 of 389
`
`

`

`Patent Owner's Response Under 37 CFR 1.941
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,453
`
`hydrothermal stability to a material, doing so typically will result in reduced catalytic activity.
`
`See,
`
`Haller Decl. (H 29. The field of zeolites and catalytic activity to this day remains highly
`
`unpredictable. See, Olson Decl. (H 24.
`
`Indeed, it was thought that the use of zeolites in diesel applications was a lost cause. See,
`
`Roth Decl. (M 5—8. Experts expressed skepticism. Id. The inventors of the present invention, when
`
`presented with the challenge of providing a material that exhibited high SCR activity at low
`
`temperatures and hydrothermal stability, initially considered exploring materials other than metal
`
`promoted zeolites. See, Moini Decl. (fl 3. After screening nearly 900 candidate materials, and further
`
`testing and analysis, the claimed invention emerged as the lead composition. Id. (fl 4.
`
`The results of the present invention are unexpected. Indeed, researchers at automotive
`
`manufacturers have described the performance as "remarkable". See, Roth Decl. (H 10. Other
`
`researchers have observed the excellent properties provided by the claimed invention. Id. The effects
`
`of each of the modifications to the properties of a zeolite on NOx conversion activity, particularly at
`
`low temperatures and maintenance of NOx conversion after hydrothermal aging were unpredictable,
`
`and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could not form a reasonable
`
`expectation that the selection of elements from the prior art proposed by the Examiner would be
`
`successful. In fact, the poor results for low temperature conversion of the references cited in the
`
`Office Action taught away from the claimed invention. Accordingly, the obviousness rejections set
`
`forth in the November 16, 2010 Office Action are defective and should be withdrawn.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`The determination of whether a claimed invention is obvious requires an analysis according
`
`to the framework of Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. l, 148 U.S.PQ. 459 (1966). See,
`
`M.P.E.P. § 804 (II) (B) (1),The Graham analysis requires the following factual inquiries:
`
`a) determine the scope and content of the combined teachings
`
`of the prior art;
`
`b) determ