`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHNSON MATTHEY INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 9,039,982
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL P. HAROLD, PH.D.
`
`1
`
`JM 1004
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Michael P. Harold, declare as follows:
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I attach my resume as Exhibit 1 to this declaration.
`
`Experience and Qualifications
`
`I am the Department Chair and M.D. Anderson Professor at the
`
`University of Houston Department of Chemical Engineering. From May to August
`
`2013, I was the Acting Dean of the Cullen College of Engineering, also at the
`
`University of Houston.
`
`3.
`
`I received my B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Penn State in 1980
`
`and earned my Ph.D in Chemical Engineering from the University of Houston in
`
`1985.
`
`4.
`
`I have been a Professor at the University of Houston since 2000. My
`
`research focuses on catalytic reaction engineering, including the catalytic reduction
`
`of NOx to nitrogen in the oxidizing atmosphere of lean burn and diesel vehicles. I
`
`have authored at least 135 peer-reviewed papers.
`
`5.
`
`In 2014, I was elected a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical
`
`Engineers. In 2013, I received the Esther Farfel Award, which is the top honor to a
`
`university faculty member at the University of Houston.
`
`6.
`
`I am the Founder and Principal Investigator of the Texas Center for
`
`Clean Engines, Emissions & Fuels (TXCEF), a UH Center involved in the
`
`research, development, testing, and implementation of emission control
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`technologies. TXCEF involves a partnership between UH, the City of Houston,
`
`the State of Texas, and third-party companies. Since 2003 the Center has had
`
`grants awarded totaling over $20 million.
`
`7.
`
` Since December 2011, I have been the Editor-in-Chief of the AIChE
`
`Journal, the journal of the world’s leading organization for chemical engineering
`
`professionals. Since 2010, I have been on the Editorial Board of Reviews in
`
`Chemical Engineering and from 2009 to 2011, I was a Consulting Editor of
`
`Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research.
`
`8.
`
`In 2004, I served as Editor of a special issue in Catalysis Today on
`
`“NOx Reduction for Diesel and Lean Burn Engines.”
`
`9.
`
`Before joining the faculty of the University of Houston in 2000, I
`
`worked for the DuPont Company, ultimately becoming the Research Manager for
`
`Chemical Process Fundamentals. I also served as the Global Technology for
`
`Polymer & Fiber R&D. During my years at DuPont I was involved in the research
`
`and development of polymer intermediates manufacturing and chemical reaction
`
`engineering.
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 9,039,982, assigned to BASF
`
`Corporation. I have also reviewed at least the following patents and printed
`
`publications:
`
` S. Hashimoto, Y. Miyairi, T. Hamanaka, R. Matsubara, T. Harada and S.
`Miwa, SiC and Cordierite Diesel Particulate Filters Designed for Low
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`Pressure Drop and Catalyzed, Uncatalyzed Systems, SAE Technical
`Paper 2002-01-0322.
` U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497 (“Speronello”), assigned to BASF
`Corporation.
` The certified translation of Georg Hüthwohl, Bernd Maurer and Gennadi
`Zikoridse, The SCRT® System – A Combination Particle Filter with SCR
`Catalyst – Enables Both Particle and NOx Emission To Be Reduced
`Simultaneously in Commercial Vehicle Diesel Engines, Proceedings of
`the Dresden Motor Conference, held in May 1999.
` Yasutake Teraoka, Kazunori Kanada, Hiroshi Furukawa, Isamu
`Moriguchi, and Shuichi Kagawa, Simultaneous Catalytic Removal of
`Nitrogen Oxides and Soot by Copper-Loaded MFI Zeolites, 30 Chemistry
`Letters 604 (2001).
` Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto with Suresh
`T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002).
`
`11. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected
`
`portions of the cited references, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would view the references cited herein in their entirety, and in combination
`
`with other references cited herein or cited within the references themselves. The
`
`references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed as being
`
`incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`12.
`
`I am not, and never was, an employee of Johnson Matthey Plc or any
`
`Johnson Matthey company. I have been engaged in the present matter to provide
`
`my independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ’982 patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my
`
`normal hourly compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`and I will not receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this inter
`
`partes review of the ’982 patent.
`
`13. Based upon my experience in this area, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in this field at the relevant time frame (“POSITA”), a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ’982 patent at the time of the invention is a person who has
`
`obtained at least a BS or MS in a chemistry, chemical engineering, material
`
`science, or a related field and least three years of experience or training in
`
`researching, studying, designing, or manufacturing diesel exhaust treatment
`
`systems.”
`
`14. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have taught, participated in organizations, and
`
`worked closely with many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`Interpretations of the ’982 Patent Claims at Issue
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that regard, I understand
`
`that the best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in the context of the patent
`
`specification as understood by a POSITA. I further understand that the words of
`
`the claims should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`with the patent specification or the patent’s history of examination before the
`
`Patent Office. I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted
`
`as they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time of the invention was
`
`made (not today); because I do not know at what date the invention as claimed was
`
`made, I have used the earliest listed priority date of the ’982 patent, August 5,
`
`2003, as the point in time for claim interpretation purposes.
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness
`
`Legal Principles
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`For purposes of my analysis above and because I know of no indication from the
`
`patent owner or others to the contrary, I have applied a date of August 5, 2003, as
`
`the date of invention in my obviousness analyses, although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even at an earlier time than August 5, 2003.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art,
`
`or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination or
`
`modification of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is
`
`improper to rely on hindsight in making the obviousness determination. KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`18. Diesel engine emissions contain nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
`
`Background
`
`particulate matter, both of which are pollutants that countries seek to restrict
`
`through the use of emissions standards. Combustion of fuel in a diesel engine
`
`requires the presence of oxygen, which is typically supplied by mixing the fuel
`
`with ambient air. A portion of the nitrogen and oxygen from this air will react in
`
`the combustion chamber leading to the formation of NOx. Diesel engines also
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`produce a relatively large amount of soot, which is the result of the incomplete
`
`combustion of the diesel fuel.
`
`19. Due to the negative health and environmental impact of these
`
`pollutants, the US government and other governments have set strict emission
`
`standards for diesel-powered vehicles. Those emission standards set limits on the
`
`permissible amount of NOx or particulate matter that may be released from
`
`specific sources over specific timeframes. For example, in 1998 the European
`
`Union Environment Council proposed new emission standards that sought to
`
`reduce the emissions of NOx and particulate matter in two stages, with the first to
`
`begin in 2005 and the second to begin in 2008. See Georg Hüthwohl, Bernd
`
`Maurer and Gennadi Zikoridse, The SCRT® System – A Combination Particle
`
`Filter with SCR Catalyst – Enables Both Particle and NOx Emission To Be
`
`Reduced Simultaneously in Commercial Vehicle Diesel Engines, Proceedings of
`
`the Dresden Motor Conference, held in May 1999 (“Hüthwohl”). As Hüthwohl
`
`states, these two stages, known as Euro IV and Euro V, respectively, demanded
`
`new emission treatment systems that significantly curtailed both particulate matter
`
`emissions and NOx emissions, simultaneously. Id. at 2-3.
`
`20. As of 2003, wall flow filters were one of the best means to curtail
`
`particulate matter emissions. As the ’982 patent states, in 2003 they were a “key
`
`aftertreatment technology in use” for “high particulate matter reduction” and were
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`“capable of removing over 90% of the particulate matter from diesel exhaust.” See
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023, col. 2, lines 13-14, 20-21 (the application that issued as
`
`the ’982 patent was a continuation of the application that issued as the ’023 patent,
`
`with their specifications materially the same; throughout this declaration I cite to
`
`the ’023 patent when quoting from specification). Wall flow filters remain one of
`
`the most effective means to reduce particulate matter emissions. Hüthwohl
`
`recognized the importance of wall flow filters in curbing particulate matter
`
`emissions, saying that the Euro IV and Euro V emissions standards “can only [be]
`
`achieved by” using a “particle filter.” Hüthwohl at 3. Hüthwohl states that its
`
`“particle filter” is the same filter used by the ss“CRT® system,” id. at 2, which was
`
`known to be a wall flow fitler. See Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto with
`
`Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control 201 (2002) (“Heck”) (“the
`
`continuous regenerable trap or (CRT) (trademark)” consists of a “wall flow trap or
`
`diesel particulate filter (DPF)”).
`
`21. At the time, Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) of NOx was the
`
`most efficient means to curtail NOx emissions from diesel engine exhausts. As the
`
`’982 patent states, in 2003 a “proven NOx abatement technology … [was]
`
`Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR),” ’023 patent, col. 2, lines 41-44 (cite to
`
`specification of parent application), a technology that was “capable of NOx
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`reduction greater than 90%, and … thus represents one of the best approaches for
`
`achieving aggressive NOx reduction goals.” Id at col. 2, lines 46-49.
`
`22. Known SCR catalysts at the time included platinum loaded onto high
`
`surface area alumina, vanadium loaded onto high surface area titania, and copper
`
`loaded on nanoporous particle zeolite. These SCR catalysts were well studied and
`
`their properties well documented. For example, it was well known that these three
`
`catalysts could convert NOx at different operating temperature ranges as
`
`documented.
`
`23. Other properties of these catalysts, such as their hydrothermal stability
`
`(i.e., the catalyst’s ability to withstand high temperature without becoming
`
`irreversibly deactivated) or their susceptibility to sulfur poising were well known.
`
`24.
`
`It was also well known that these catalysts could serve more than one
`
`function in an exhaust gas treatment system. For example, the soot oxidation
`
`capacity for platinum on alumina and for copper on zeolites were both studied and
`
`documented. See Yasutake Teraoka, Kazunori Kanada, Hiroshi Furukawa, Isamu
`
`Moriguchi, and Shuichi Kagawa, Simultaneous Catalytic Removal of Nitrogen
`
`Oxides and Soot by Copper-Loaded MFI Zeolites, 30 Chemistry Letters 604
`
`(2001) (“Teraoka”) (teaching that “Cu-loaded MFI zeolites showed the catalytic
`
`activity for the oxidation of soot and reduction of NOx simultaneously”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`25. Accordingly, those skilled in the art could have easily selected an
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`appropriate catalyst for a particular function based on well documented properties
`
`of that catalyst. For example, one could have selected a particular type SCR
`
`catalyst based on factors such as the desired efficiency of the system and the
`
`acceptable cost and complexity of the system. If an SCR process were chosen, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art could have then matched known catlytic
`
`materials to specific applications based on known properties of the catalysts.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Been Motivated To
`Permeate the Walls of a Wall Flow Filter with an SCR Catalyst
`
`26. Diesel engine exhaust catalysts are heterogeneous and thus typically
`
`have an active metal on a high surface area support (on a microscopic scale) to
`
`increase the rates of the chemical reactions and the selectivity to the desired
`
`product(s). Those catalysts are typically coated onto a honeycomb monolithic
`
`substrate which provides a high geometric surface area of the active material.
`
`Honeycomb substrates are those which have multiple parallel walls that define
`
`channels which run along the axial length of the substrate. Examples of
`
`honeycomb substrates include flow-through monoliths and wall-flow filters.
`
`27. Shown below is a flow-through-monolith, where each channel is
`
`unblocked and open at both the inlet and outlet ends.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`28. Shown below is a wall-flow filter, with each channel blocked at one
`
`end of the substrate body and alternate channels blocked at opposite end-faces.
`
`
`
`See Heck at 217:
`
`
`
`
`
`29. As of 2003, vanadium, copper or iron were all well-known SCR
`
`catalysts. Copper and iron containing catalysts were commonly loaded on a
`
`zeolite. A zeolite is a microporous crystalline material comprising aluminosilicate.
`
`Copper and iron can be loaded onto the zeolite by ion exchange or similar process.
`
`As of 2003, ZSM-5 and beta zeolites were well known as being suitable for SCR
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`applications. Supporting the iron or copper catalyst in a zeolite was known to
`
`improve the selectivity in converting NOx to the innocuous (benign) byproducts of
`
`the SCR reaction.
`
`30.
`
`In the SCR process, NOx is reduced with a reductant, such as
`
`ammonia (NH3), into two innocuous byproducts, nitrogen gas and water, over a
`
`catalyst. The reaction (unbalanced), in general terms, is depicted below:
`
`NH3 + NOx + O2 → N2 + H2O
`
`31. Diesel engine exhaust gas generally does not contain ammonia, and
`
`thus an ammonia-based SCR process to reduce NOx emissions requires a source of
`
`reductant supplied to the exhaust stream. The most prevalent source of reductant
`
`as of 2003 was a reductant dosing system that injected the reductant into the
`
`exhaust stream. Such dosing systems were well known in the art as of 2003, as the
`
`’982 patent describes. See ’023 patent, col. 10, lines 27-40 (cite to specification of
`
`parent application). It was known in the art that such dosing systems could inject
`
`ammonia directly into the system, or instead some type of ammonia precursor like
`
`aqueous urea solution. See, e.g., id. at col. 7, lines (8-10) (“Aqueous urea … can
`
`serve as the ammonia precursor ….”).
`
`32. There would have been, as of 2003, a strong desire to combine an
`
`SCR catalyst with a wall flow filter. Specifically, there would have been a strong
`
`desire to use a single substrate—a wall flow filter—to remove two known
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`pollutants—particulate matter and NOx. As of 2003, both pollutants were the
`
`subject of tightening emissions standards, and industry was seeking to develop a
`
`diesel exhaust treatment system that could aggressively reduce the emissions of
`
`both simultaneously.
`
`33. Hüthwohl taught that exactly such a solution was needed to achieve
`
`the aggressive emission reductions required by the newly proposed Euro IV & V
`
`emissions standards. Specifically, Hüthwohl states that “excellent emission
`
`values” can “only be achieved” by combining a particle filter with an SCR catalyst.
`
`Hüthwohl at 3.
`
`34. Combining a wall flow filter with an SCR catalyst would have had
`
`many well-known advantages, including a decrease in the amount of space needed
`
`to accommodate the dual functions of particulate matter removal function and NOx
`
`reduction. Performing the SCR and particulate filtration functions using separate
`
`substrates, (e.g., loading the SCR catalyst on a substrate other than the particulate
`
`filter) would likely require more space than using one substrate for both functions
`
`For example, Hüthwohl teaches about how “[c]urrent SCR catalysts cannot be
`
`accommodated in the physical volume of today’s city buses,” Hüthwohl at 3, and
`
`furthermore, that “[i]t is disproportionately more difficult to integrate a[n
`
`additional] particle filter” into that same system. Id. Space is a valuable
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`commodity in all diesel exhaust treatment systems. Thus, a lower system volume
`
`would have many known benefits.
`
`35.
`
`In light of the newly proposed emissions standards, industry would
`
`have followed the teachings of Huethwohl so that products could effectively serve
`
`two needed functions—particulate matter removal and NOx reduction—using only
`
`a single substrate, a wall flow filter. The selection of specific SCR catalytic
`
`materials would have been mere optimization of known catalyst features with
`
`known filter substrates.
`
`36. Hüthwohl provided a person of ordinary skill the reasonable
`
`expectation that the resulting emission treatment system would work as intended—
`
`i.e., to simultaneously reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions—because the
`
`Hüthwohl system did in fact achieve the reduction of both pollutants. That is,
`
`there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the Hüthwohl
`
`system had already accomplished the simultaneous reduction of both NOx and
`
`particulate matter emissions.
`
`The Iron and Copper Zeolites Taught By Speronello Would Have Been the
`Preferred Candidates To Load Inside A Wall Flow Filter
`
`37. Speronello describes iron and copper zeolites as SCR catalysts and it
`
`is clear that SCR catalysts of the ’982 patent are nothing more than the Speronello
`
`catalysts loaded into a wall flow filter. The teachings of Speronello suggest that
`
`these copper and iron zeolite catalysts would be just as applicable to a wall flow
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`filter as to a conventional flow through substrate. In fact, the catalytic material in
`
`the claims of the ’982 patent are often almost identical to the teachings of
`
`Speranello.
`
`38. When selecting an SCR catalyst to load onto a wall flow filter, the
`
`iron and copper zeolites disclosed by the Speronello patent would have been
`
`preferred catalyst. Those catalysts were known to be stable at high temperatures,
`
`resistant to sulfur degradation, and active and selective over a wide range of
`
`temperatures—all crucial considerations for use in a diesel exhaust treatment
`
`system. Further, as of 2003, industry appreciated that these three catalyst
`
`characteristics were crucial when developing a diesel exhaust treatment system.
`
`As of 2003, catalysts of the type taught by Speronello had been the subject of
`
`extensive research and were well-known to be active for SCR.
`
`39. With respect to stability at high temperatures, the filter often must be
`
`heated to high temperatures in order to “regenerate” the filter, i.e., to burn off the
`
`trapped soot. This property is distinct from the catalyst’s operating temperature
`
`which is the temperature range within which the catalyst effectively converts NOx
`
`into N2 and water. These two properties of a catalyst are independent of each
`
`other.
`
`40. The ’982 patent acknowledges that “the catalyst composition must be
`
`durable so that it maintains its SCR catalytic activity even after prolonged
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`exposure to higher temperatures that are characteristic of filter regeneration.” ’023
`
`patent, col. 3, lines 14-17 (cite to specification of parent application), and states
`
`that iron or copper zeolites display “thermal resistance to temperatures greater than
`
`650° C.” Id. at col. 7, lines 61-63. Speronello teaches that its “promoted zeolite
`
`materials demonstrate sufficient thermal and hydrothermal stability to … provide
`
`an acceptably long life and efficiency of the catalysts.” Id. at col. 6, lines 22-25.
`
`Speronello also teaches catalyst compositions capable of “effective[ly] …
`
`reduc[ing] nitrogen oxides with ammonia” “at a temperature of from about 200° C.
`
`to 600° C.”). Id. at claim 5. There appears to be no material difference between
`
`the copper and iron zeolite catalysts described in Speronello and the copper zeolite
`
`catalysts encompassed by the claims of the ’982 patent. The ’982 patent does not
`
`suggest any special treatment or modification of the SCR catalyst described by
`
`Speronello. Thus, the catalyst thermal durability claimed by in the ’982 patent is
`
`an inherent feature of the catalyst described in Speronello. A skilled artisan would
`
`have recognized that the Speronello catalysts would have adequate thermal
`
`durability for use in a catalyzed wall-flow filter.
`
`41. With respect to resistance to sulfur degradation, diesel emissions were
`
`known to include sulfur. The sulfur present in diesel exhaust was known to be able
`
`to poison the catalyst, decreasing its activity and necessitating more frequent
`
`regeneration of the catalyst. Thus, it would have been desirable for the selected
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`SCR catalyst to be resistant to sulfur poisoning. The ’982 patent acknowledges
`
`this common sense principle, saying that resistance to degradation by sulfur is an
`
`important consideration, ’023 patent, col. 8, lines 13-14 (cite to specification of
`
`parent application), and recognizing that Speronello teaches that its iron or copper
`
`zeolites “are resistant to sulfur poisoning.” Id. (referring to zeolites used in the
`
`“[s]uitable SCR compositions” described by Speronello and another other prior art
`
`patent, see id. at col. 8, lines 1-4).
`
`42.
`
`In general, the more active the catalyst, less catalyst is needed to
`
`adequately reduce the emissions of pollutants. This is beneficial for a number of
`
`reasons, including to lower the overall cost of the system and to use a smaller
`
`system volume. A lower system volume has many known benefits, including to
`
`save space in the diesel exhaust aftertreatment system; space is a valuable
`
`commodity in all diesel exhaust aftertreatment systems. With respect to the
`
`activity and selectivity of the Speronello catalysts, the reference teaches that its
`
`catalysts “provide a simple and relatively inexpensive means for efficiently
`
`catalyzing the reduction of nitrogen oxides.” Speronello at col. 16, lines 44-49.
`
`As Figure 2 of Speronello shows, the efficient means of catalyzing the reduction of
`
`NOx worked over a wide range of temperatures. See id. at Figure 2 (showing high
`
`NOx conversion efficiency from about 350 to 600° C). Importantly, the range over
`
`which the Speronello catalysts work efficiently in reducing NOx matches the
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`temperature of needed for use in a diesel exhaust system. The ’982 patent—in
`
`“EXAMPLE 4: Evaluation of NOx Conversion and Particulate Removal for
`
`Coated Soot Filters”—demonstrates the NOx conversion efficiency of its claimed
`
`catalysts at a “controlled” “filter inlet temperature of 370° C.” See ’023 patent,
`
`col. 14, lines 10-21 (cite to specification of parent application). As Figure 2 in
`
`Speronello demonstrates, the base metal zeolite catalysts disclosed by Speronello
`
`would have been expected to provide very efficient NOx conversion at that
`
`temperature, with a NOx conversion efficiency approaching 90%. Further, those
`
`same base metal zeolite catalysts would have maintained a satisfactory NOx
`
`conversion efficiency (i.e., above 80% NOx conversion efficiency) all the way up
`
`to 550° C. See Speronello, Figure 2. The Speronello catalysts, therefore, would
`
`have been a preferable option when selecting an efficient catalyst, and their activity
`
`would have directly led to cost and space savings in the diesel emission
`
`aftertreatment system.
`
`43. Furthermore, the Speronello catalysts were active over a wide range
`
`of temperatures, which is a factor when selecting a catalyst for use in diesel
`
`exhaust treatment systems. See Speronello, Figure 2; see also id. at claim 5
`
`(claiming a base metal zeolite catalyst capable of “effective[ly] … reduc[ing]
`
`nitrogen oxides with ammonia” “at a temperature of from about 200° C. to 600°
`
`C.”). Such systems were known to experience a wide range of temperatures, based
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`on how hot the emissions were from the diesel engine. If an SCR catalyst only
`
`worked effectively at a limited temperature range, then NOx would escape when
`
`the engine is operated at a temperature outside that limited range. This would be
`
`undesirable, because it would prevent the SCR catalyst from achieving the
`
`aggressive NOx reduction goals required by the impending emissions standards.
`
`44. Another routine design parameter is the space velocity (SV), that is
`
`the ratio of the volumetric flow rate to the total volume of the monolith catalyst
`
`(units of inverse hours, h-1). This factor determines the residence time that the
`
`exhaust gas is in contact with the catalyst and is provided in units independent
`
`from the dimensions of the filter. For example, a highly active catalyst will
`
`convert NOx more quickly, thus the SV of the exhaust gas may be increased while
`
`maintaining adequate catalyst contact time for good conversion. The Speronello
`
`catalysts were active at a very high space velocity of 1.2 x 106 cc/g h for a powder
`
`catalyst. This is equivalent to a space velocity of about 220,000 h-1 were the power
`
`supported as a washcoat on a monolith substrate at a typical loading of 3 g/in3. For
`
`example, both Cu- and Fe-exchanged beta zeolite catalysts achieved over 80%
`
`conversion above about 350o C at the stated space velocity. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize these catalysts to be active SCR catalysts.
`
`45.
`
`It is clear that SCR catalysts of the ’982 patent are nothing more than
`
`the Speronello catalysts loaded into a wall flow filter. As described above, the
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`claims of the ’982 patent are often almost identical to the teachings of Speronello.
`
`For example, a dependent claim of the ’982 patent requires that “the zeolite of the
`
`SCR catalyst composition has pores with a pore diameter of at least about 7
`
`Angstroms and are connected in three dimensions,” whereas Speronello’s Abstract
`
`states that that the “zeolite may be any suitable zeolite, especially one having … a
`
`kinetic pore size of about 7 to about 8 Angstroms with such pores being
`
`interconnected in all three crystallographic dimensions.” Likewise, the ’982 patent
`
`requires catalyst washcoat loadings of up to 2.4 g.in3, of at least 1.3 g/in3, or of
`
`from 1.6 to 2.4 g/in3, whereas Speronello teaches at least seven SCR catalyst
`
`compositions, all following within those claimed ranges:
`
` col. 8, lines 57-60 (Catalyst I: 1.6 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst);
` col. 9, lines 26-29 (Catalyst II: 1.7 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst);
` col. 9, lines 60-64 (Catalyst III: 1.5 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst);
` col. 10, lines 26-30 (Catalyst IV: 2.0 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst);
` col. 10, lines 64-67 (Catalyst V: 1.8 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst);
` col. 11, lines 39-42 (Catalyst VI: 1.5 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst);
` col. 12, lines 45-48 (Catalyst VII: 1.7 g/in3 of a copper zeolite catalyst).
`
`46.
`
`In addition to knowing that an SCR catalyst could be applied to a
`
`wall-flow filter and that metal zeolites are obvious choices for such catalysts, a
`
`POSITA would have readily known the amount of metal zeolite catalyst washcoat
`
`necessary for good NOx conversion in most applications would be between 1.6 and
`
`2.4 g/in3, as shown in Speranello. Moreover, a POSITA would have known that
`
`the amount of catalyst washcoat required for effective NOx conversion would be
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`
`the same whether it was applied to a flowthrough substrate or a wall-flow filter.
`
`Due to the fast response time of the SCR catalyst, the kinetics of the SCR reaction
`
`would not be that different for a flow-through SCR compared to an SCR catalyst
`
`on a filter. Thus, a POSITA would know that metal zeolite catalyst could be
`
`applied to a filter at the same loadings disclosed in Speranello.
`
`47. Similarly, the ’982 patent merely claims the teachings of Speronello
`
`when it claims an SCR catalyst composition that promotes the oxidation of excess
`
`NH3 with O2, a silica to alumina ratio of at least about 10, a particular zeolite
`
`type—beta zeolite, USY or ZSM-20, a particular percent of copper by weight, 0.1
`
`to 30 percent, a particular thermal resistance, and a resistance to degradation by
`
`sulfur. Speronello has all of these teachings. Specifically, Speronello teaches an
`
`SCR catalyst composition that promotes the oxidation of excess NH3 with O2 (col.
`
`13, line 64 to col. 14, line 9), a silica-to-alumina ratio of about 10 or more
`
`(Abstract), the same group of zeolite types—USY, Beta and ZSM-20 (claim 11), a
`
`particular percent of iron or copper by weight, 0.2-1% (claim 7), a particular
`
`thermal resistance (col. 6, lines 22-25), and a resistance to degradation by sulfur
`
`(col. 6, lines 46-49).
`
`48.
`
`It is thus clear that the ’982 patent does nothing more than take the
`
`SCR catalyst composition taught by Speronello and load it onto a wall flow filter.
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVI
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
