`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHNSON MATTHEY INC. and JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction. ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Been Motivated To Use Hüthwohl’s
`
`System And Would Have Reasonably Expected It To Reduce NOx and PM
`
`Emissions. ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`III. The Speronello Catalysts Were “One Of The Best, Most Stable, SCR
`
`Catalysts.” .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. The Hashimoto Wall-Flow Filters Solved The Back-Pressure Problem And
`
`Were “Prime Candidates For the Catalyzed System.” ...................................... 16
`
`V. The Claimed Combination Performed As Expected. ........................................ 19
`
`a. The BASF Patents Did Not Fulfill a Long-Felt Need ............................. 19
`
`b. Industry Praise and Skepticism of Others Are Not Tied to Novel
`Advance That The BASF Patents Made Over the Prior Art ................... 20
`
`VI. Claim 15 Recites A Product-By-Process Limitation, Which Cannot Confer
`
`Patentability. ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`VII. Dr. Tennent Disclosed The Basis Of His Opinions. ...................................... 22
`
`VIII. Conclusion. .................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................. 2, 8
`
`In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................... 21
`
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Sys. Intern. LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc., 107 F. Supp. 3d 656, 676-77 (E.D. Tex.
`2015) .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ............................................... 19
`
`Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 834-35 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................. 15
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)21
`
`Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., 780 F.3d 1337, 1347 Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................... 7
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea, 721 F.3d 1371, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............ 7, 17
`
`South Alabama Medical Science Foundation v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 823, 827
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`JM 1001
`JM 1002
`JM 1003
`JM 1004
`JM 1005
`
`JM 1006
`
`JM 1007
`
`JM 1008
`JM 1009
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023
`Prosecution History of the ’023 patent
`Declaration of Dr. Tennent
`Declaration of Dr. Harold
`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
`Original German-Language Publication 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
`S. Hashimoto, Y. Miyairi, T. Hamanaka, R. Matsubara, T.
`Harada and S. Miwa, SiC and Cordierite Diesel Particulate
`Filters Designed for Low Pressure Drop and Catalyzed,
`Uncatalyzed Systems, SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-0322
`U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497
`Yasutake Teraoka, Kazunori Kanada, Hiroshi Furukawa,
`Isamu Moriguchi, and Shuichi Kagawa, Simultaneous
`Catalytic Removal of Nitrogen Oxides and Soot by Copper-
`
`iii
`
`
`
`JM 1010
`JM 1011
`
`JM 1012
`
`JM 1013
`JM 1014
`JM 1015
`JM 1016
`
`JM 1017
`
`JM 1018
`
`JM 1019
`
`JM 1020-1028
`JM 1029
`JM 1030
`
`JM 1031
`
`JM 1032
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`Loaded MFI Zeolites, 30 Chemistry Letters 604 (2001)
`Japanese Patent Appl. No. 2002-210300
`Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)
`Printout of United States Environmental Protection Agency,
`Nitrogen Dioxides: Health (2014), available at
`http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/nitrogenoxides/health.htmlf
`Declaration of Dr. Bernd Maurer
`Abstract of Hashimoto indexed in STN
`U.S. Patent No. 6,248,684
`Certified Translation of Confirmation from the Technical
`Information Library at the University Library of Hannover
`Confirmation from the Technical Information Library at the
`University Library of Hannover
`Declaration of Joseph C. Dettling at 13, Reexamination No.
`95/001,744 (July 3, 2012)
`Declaration of Douglas E. McCann in support of Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Reserved
`Transcript of Deposition of Mark Crocker, May 6, 2016.
`J. Gieshoff, et al., Advanced Urea SCR Catalysts for
`Automotive Applications, SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-
`0514
`Timothy V. Johnson, Diesel Emission Control in Review,
`SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-0184
`U.S. Patent Publ. 2002/0044897
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`
`JM 1033
`JM 1034
`JM 1035
`
`JM 1036
`
`EP 0 508 020
`WO 2002/41991
`Harth et al., Smart Catalyst Technologies for Future
`Automotive Emission Control, Internationales Wiener
`Motorensymposium 2012
`Dieterle et al., Two in One: SCR on Filter, MINOX
`Conference 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`The BASF Patents1 claim a known arrangement of two established elements:
`
`an SCR catalyst to reduce NOx emissions and a wall-flow filter to reduce
`
`particulate matter (PM) emissions. BASF does not argue that the combination
`
`yielded any unexpected results, acknowledging that both elements do no more than
`
`perform their usual functions.
`
`Numerous prior art references taught combining an SCR catalyst with a
`
`wall-flow filter to meet proposed emission standards, which required the
`
`substantial reduction both of NOx and PM emissions. See, e.g., BASF 2034.008
`
`(“By combining [a wall-flow filter] with SCR technology it is possible to reach the
`
`NOx, PM, HC and CO emissions standards.”); JM 1031 at 15 (stating that “[t]he
`
`ultimate diesel emission solutions will include both advanced NOx and PM
`
`control,” and describing “three studies [that] have emerged on combining filters
`
`and SCR”). Hüthwohl built and tested a system that placed an SCR catalyst inside
`
`the wall-flow filter, explaining that it saved space and still achieved the reductions
`
`
`1 BASF Patents refers to the patents in IPR2015-01265-01267, which are
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,899,023, 9,039,982, and 9,032,709, respectively. All three
`
`patents share a specification. For convenience, Johnson Matthey’s Reply in all
`
`three proceedings will cite to the specification of the ’982 patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`in NOx and PM emissions needed to comply with proposed standards. JM 1005 at
`
`3, 8-9.
`
`BASF identifies no patentable difference between its claims and the prior
`
`art. BASF did not improve the arrangement of Hüthwohl’s system, JM 1005.
`
`BASF did not improve the Speronello catalysts, JM 1008, which the prior art
`
`describes as “one of the best, most stable, SCR catalysts.” JM 1032, ¶ 14, 93.
`
`BASF did not improve the Hashimoto wall-flow filters, JM 1007, which were
`
`“prime candidates for the catalyzed system.” JM 1007 at 13. Indeed, the BASF
`
`Patents frequently copy those references verbatim. See, e.g., Petition, § VII.E.
`
`The combination of Hüthwohl, Speronello, and Hashimoto that the BASF patents
`
`cover did not lead to any unexpected results. In short, BASF merely did what the
`
`prior art said to do: use an SCR catalyst and wall-flow filter to reduce both NOx
`
`and PM emissions and combine them into a single unit as Hüthwohl did to save
`
`space.
`
`Trying to salvage its claims, BASF only points to irrelevant differences
`
`between the prior art and a commercially viable product, not the claims. But that is
`
`not the proper analysis. See Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013) (“There is no requirement that one of ordinary skill have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in developing [a commercial product] …. [but] need only
`
`have a reasonable expectation of success of developing the claimed invention.”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`Time and again, BASF argues that the claims are nonobvious because a
`
`person of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`practicing certain unclaimed characteristics. The claims do not require any
`
`particular level of NOx or PM reduction. Cf. BASF Response, § IV.A.2. The
`
`claims do not require that the soot combustion temperature be lowered by any
`
`particular amount. Cf. id. at § IV.A.1. The claims do not require that the SCR
`
`catalyst perform up to 1000°C or even 700°C. Cf. id. at § IV.A.3. The claims do
`
`not require that the SCR catalyst be resistant to poisoning by ash and unburned
`
`hydrocarbons. Cf. id. at § IV.A.4. The claims do not require a particular mode of
`
`filter regeneration or performance of the filter during filter regeneration. Cf. id. at
`
`§ IV.B. The claims do not require that the wall-flow filter exhibit a particular
`
`thermo-mechanical durability. Cf. id. at § IV.E. Yet, to make its arguments,
`
`BASF assumes that the claims require each of these limitations.
`
`BASF’s expert, Dr. Crocker, admitted that his analysis was not based on
`
`what the claims of actually require, but focused instead on what would have been
`
`required for a commercially viable product:
`
`Q.
`In conducting your obviousness analysis and looking at the
`prior art and assessing whether there was a reasonable expectation
`of success, what I'm asking is, success of what?
`
`A. Success of combining the prior art into a workable technology.
`
`Q. A commercially workable technology?
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`A. Yes …. It would have to be commercially -- it would have to
`be commercially viable to be worthwhile.
`
`Crocker Transcript, JM 1029, 46:14-22 & 46:24-47-1.
`
`The claims do not recite these characteristics for the simple reason that the
`
`BASF Patents do not disclose or support any of them. It took BASF almost a
`
`decade from the priority date of the BASF Patents to achieve a system that
`
`displayed even some of them. A 2012 BASF publication describes how an SCR-
`
`catalyzed wall-flow filter “can be developed that meets very stringent emission
`
`regulations,” while reporting on “[s]ignificant new results” concerning the
`
`“durability of this new component.” JM 1035, at 6 (emphasis added). Likewise, a
`
`2010 BASF publication reports on “newly developed SCR catalysts [that] show
`
`high hydrothermal stability” and, therefore, “open a new path” of combining
`
`“different functions (e.g. removal of particulates and NOx) in only one unit.” JM
`
`1036, at 1.
`
`II.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Been Motivated To Use
`Hüthwohl’s System And Would Have Reasonably Expected It To
`Reduce NOx and PM Emissions.
`
`Hüthwohl teaches that attaining “excellent emission values” could “only be
`
`achieved by combining a particle filter with an SCR catalyst.” Hüthwohl, JM
`
`1005, at 3. Hüthwohl’s system loads an SCR catalyst into a wall-flow filter. Id.
`
`Hüthwohl teaches its SCR-catalyzed filter serves two functions simultaneously—
`
`removal of NOx and PM—and therefore reduces the overall size of the system. Id.
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`Hüthwohl then tests the system, showing that it can meet the EURO-III and
`
`EURO-IV emission standards. Id. at 8-9. Hüthwohl, in fact, was confident enough
`
`in the SCR-catalyzed wall-flow filter to put it into everyday service in buses. Id. at
`
`9.
`
`Nevertheless, BASF argues that there would have been no motivation to
`
`load an SCR catalyst into a wall-flow filter. See BASF Response, § IV.A (“The
`
`Skilled Artisan Would Not Have Been Motivated To Washcoat A Soot Filter With
`
`An SCR Catalyst….”). Besides ignoring Hüthwohl, BASF’s argument contradicts
`
`the shared specification of the BASF Patents, which acknowledges that exactly
`
`such a motivation did exist. See ’982 patent, col. 2, lines 54-64. According to the
`
`BASF Patents, there was a motivation “to coat the soot filter with a catalyst
`
`composition effective for the conversion of NOx to innocuous components,”
`
`because in that approach “the catalyzed soot filter assumes two catalyst functions:
`
`removal of the particulate component of the exhaust stream and conversion of the
`
`NOx component.” Id. That is the same motivation that had already led Hüthwohl
`
`to put an SCR catalyst into a wall-flow filter. JM 1005, at 3.
`
`Hüthwohl was not alone in teaching that future emission standards would
`
`require combining an SCR catalyst with a wall-flow filter. The prior art taught that
`
`engine modification techniques like exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) could not
`
`meet the aggressive new emission standards. See JM 1031, at 15 (“The ultimate
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`diesel emission solutions will include both advanced NOx and PM control.”); see
`
`also BASF 2028.014 (“Ultimately, both light-duty and heavy duty emission
`
`control systems will have to incorporate both NOx and PM emission control
`
`features.”). Engine modification techniques like EGR did not solve the “NOx-
`
`particulate tradeoff,” see Crocker Decl., BASF 2013, ¶¶ 37, 44, i.e., the known
`
`challenge that the engine could be modified to give low NOx and high PM, or vice
`
`versa, but could not be modified to give low NOx and low PM. The prior art
`
`taught that combining an SCR catalyst and a wall-flow filter overcame the “NOx-
`
`particulate tradeoff.” See BASF 2034.003 (“[C]ombin[ing] advanced SCR NOx
`
`control catalyst technology with the PM control of a [wall-flow filter] … deliver[s]
`
`high conversions of HC, CO, NOx and PM.”). Besides aggressively reducing NOx
`
`and PM emissions, the combination had the additional benefit of “allow[ing] the
`
`engine to be calibrated for optimum performance/fuel economy etc.” Id.
`
`Hüthwohl thus confirms what was known (and what the BASF Patents
`
`acknowledge): that both elements would be needed and that it would be desirable
`
`to combine them into a single unit. ’982 patent, col. 2, lines 54-64. There was
`
`nothing inventive in selecting a wall-flow filter, the “most common and well-
`
`known device,” to reduce PM emissions. BASF-2027.004; see also Crocker Decl.,
`
`BASF-2013, ¶ 26. Nor was there anything inventive in selecting an SCR catalyst,
`
`which was “one of the best candidates for meeting the aggressive NOx reduction
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`goals” required for future emission standards. JM 1032, ¶ 15; see also BASF-
`
`2028.008 (“SCR is emerging as the leading NOx reduction technology in Europe
`
`to hit Euro IV (2005) and Euro V (2008) HDD standards.”).
`
`Faced with this evidence, BASF makes the legally irrelevant argument that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`achieving certain characteristics that are not claimed and, indeed, that the BASF
`
`Patents could not claim anyway. For example, BASF devotes an entire section of
`
`its Response to how a skilled artisan would have believed that ash and unburnt
`
`hydrocarbons would poison the SCR catalyst. See BASF Response, § IV.A.4. Yet
`
`none of the claims require any level of resistance to poisoning by ash and unburnt
`
`hydrocarbons. Nor could the claims impose such a requirement, because nowhere
`
`does the specification disclose any contribution that the BASF Patents made to
`
`develop SCR catalysts with improved resistance to poisoning. It is not relevant to
`
`the obviousness determination. See Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., 780 F.3d
`
`1337, 1347 Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Many of appellants’ arguments on the lack of reasons
`
`to combine the teachings of these three patents rely on the fact that they do not
`
`disclose anything about corneal permeability …. [but] this is not a limitation …
`
`and, therefore, is not relevant to the obviousness determination.”); see also Smith
`
`& Nephew, Inc. v. Rea, 721 F.3d 1371, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“an unclaimed
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`and undisclosed feature … cannot be the basis for finding [a] patent to be non-
`
`obvious over the prior art”).
`
`Similarly, BASF’s arguments presume that the claims require a particular
`
`amount of reduction in NOx and PM emissions, or that they require that the soot
`
`oxidation temperature be lowered by a particular amount, or that they require that
`
`the wall-flow filter display a particular thermo-mechanical durability. See BASF
`
`Response, §§ IV.A.1-4, IV.B, & IV.E. The claims require none of those features.
`
`What they do require is that the wall-flow filter have a particular pore size and
`
`porosity, that the SCR catalyst be an iron- or copper-zeolite and have a particular
`
`catalyst loading, that the SCR-catalyzed filter reduce NOx and PM emissions by
`
`any amount; and that the SCR catalyst also catalyze the oxidation of soot to any
`
`degree. E.g. ’982 patent, claim 1; see also ’023 patent, claim 1. The BASF
`
`Patents mostly copy the language of those actual claim limitations directly from
`
`the prior art. See, e.g., Petition, § VII.E. None of BASF’s arguments identify
`
`patentable differences between the prior art and the claims. See Allergan, 726 F.3d
`
`at 1291 (“There is no requirement that one of ordinary skill have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in developing [a commercial product] …. [but] need only
`
`have a reasonable expectation of success of developing the claimed invention.”).
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in achieving what the claims actually do require. First, BASF does not
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`dispute that Hüthwohl’s SCR-catalyzed filter reduces PM emissions. See JM 1005,
`
`at 8-9. Second, BASF does not dispute that zeolites were known to catalyze the
`
`oxidation of soot. See Teraoka, JM 1009, at 1. BASF does argue that zeolites
`
`would have been a “poor” catalyst for soot oxidation compared to platinum. See
`
`BASF Response, § IV.A.2 (arguing that even if “it was known” zeolites could
`
`catalyze soot oxidation, it would have been “weak relative to the preferred Pt-
`
`based catalysts”). The claims, however, do not require that the SCR catalyst
`
`catalyze soot oxidation to the same degree that platinum does. The specification of
`
`the BASF Patents discloses only that a zeolite catalyzes soot oxidation to a greater
`
`extent than a non-zeolite, vanadium catalyst (under certain conditions). See ’982
`
`Patent, Example 3 & Figure 5. Nothing in the BASF Patents supports a claim
`
`requiring that the SCR catalyst be comparable to platinum for soot oxidation.
`
`Third, with respect to NOx, Hüthwohl unambiguously teaches that the SCR
`
`catalyst inside the wall-flow filter reduces NOx emissions. Specifically, Hüthwohl
`
`teaches that, because “the volume of the soot filter will be already utilized for the
`
`SCR reaction,” “only a proportionately smaller SCR catalyst has to be connected in
`
`series.” JM 1005, at 3. That is, the SCR-catalyzed filter successfully reduces NOx
`
`emissions and, therefore, less SCR catalyst is needed downstream. Importantly,
`
`the BASF Patents specifically contemplate using a downstream SCR catalyst like
`
`Hüthwohl teaches:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`Depending on the desired level of NOx removal, additional SCR
`catalyst can be disposed downstream of the soot filter. For example,
`the additional SCR catalyst may be disposed on a monolithic,
`honeycomb flow through substrate … downstream of the soot filter.
`Even in these embodiments, the use of the coated SCR soot filter
`still achieves a reduction in the total volume of catalyst required to
`meet NOx reduction goals.
`
`’982 Patent, col. 7, lines 23-30.
`
` BASF’s argument is premised on reading Hüthwohl as teaching that no
`
`NOx reduction whatsoever occurs in the SCR-coated filter. Dr. Harold called this
`
`scenario “[n]ot likely.” Exhibit 2025, 196:11-197:6. Even BASF’s expert, Dr.
`
`Crocker, does not testify that a skilled artisan would have viewed Hüthwohl as
`
`teaching that no NOx reduction occurs at all. See Crocker Decl., ¶ 79-80. Instead,
`
`Dr. Crocker states that “Hüthwohl provides no information regarding how much
`
`NOx reduction, if any, is actually taking place on the coated DPF compared to the
`
`downstream SCR catalyst.” Id. at ¶ 79. That does no more than accurately
`
`describe the data that Hüthwohl discloses. See Hüthwohl, JM 1005, 8 (Table 4).
`
`But Dr. Crocker never concludes from that data that a skilled artisan would have
`
`thought that absolutely no NOx reduction occurs. Moreover, he cites no evidence
`
`to support the conclusion that the “SCR-active material” that Hüthwohl loads into
`
`the wall-flow filter would show zero SCR activity. JM 1005, 3. BASF’s
`
`argument, therefore, was not even adopted by its expert.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to load
`
`an SCR catalyst into a wall-flow filter and would have reasonably expected it to
`
`reduce NOx and PM emissions and to also catalyze the oxidation of soot.
`
`III.
`
`The Speronello Catalysts Were “One Of The Best, Most Stable, SCR
`Catalysts.”
`
`The Speronello catalysts would have been preferred catalysts for use in
`
`Hüthwohl’s system. A person of ordinary skill would have considered the
`
`following characteristics when selecting an SCR catalyst for Hüthwohl’s system:
`
`resistance to sulfur degradation, high activity over a wide range of temperatures,
`
`and thermal stability. See Harold Decl., JM 1004, ¶ 38. BASF does not dispute
`
`that these were known to be important considerations as of 2003. Moreover,
`
`BASF does not dispute that the Speronello catalysts were recognized to be resistant
`
`to sulfur degradation and to be highly active over a wide range of temperatures.
`
`See Harold Decl., JM 1004, ¶ 41-48.
`
`With respect to thermal stability (the only issue BASF does raise, see BASF
`
`Response, § IV.A.3), BASF argues that the Speronello zeolites would not have
`
`displayed sufficient thermal stability. However, the prior art taught that zeolites
`
`displayed the best thermal stability among known SCR catalysts. See Heck
`
`Treatise, JM 1011, 205-06 (“For … temperatures of 200-300 °C V2O5 [i.e.,
`
`vanadium] catalysts … are preferred, while above this temperature range a metal-
`
`exchanged zeolite catalyst is required.”). Notably, BASF never identifies SCR
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`catalysts for use in Hüthwohl’s system that were known in 2003 to have better
`
`thermal stability than zeolites. Prior art from Engelhard Corporation (whom BASF
`
`purchased and who is also the original assignee of the BASF Patents) describes
`
`how an embodiment of Speronello was considered the most thermally stable type
`
`SCR catalyst:
`
`[O]ne of the best, most stable, SCR catalysts, which is of the zeolite
`type (e.g. The assignee, Engelhard Corporation’s ZNX catalyst, a
`Fe-Beta Zeolite), also has
`the highest optimum operating
`temperature.
`
`JM 1032, ¶ 14. JM 1032 specifically references Speronello, saying that it teaches
`
`the “preferred composition of the SCR catalyst” and that “the ZNX SCR catalyst
`
`composition disclosed above falls within” its teachings. Id. at ¶ 93. BASF’s
`
`predecessor-in-interest, therefore, described Speronello as teaching one of the best,
`
`most stable SCR catalysts with the highest optimum operating temperature.
`
`All BASF argues is that the Speronello catalysts would not have been
`
`considered stable enough for use “during active filter regeneration temperatures
`
`[where] can exceed 700ºC, and may even reach 1000ºC.” BASF Response,
`
`§ IV.A.3. BASF ignores, however, that most of its claims, including all of the
`
`independent claims, have no temperature limitations whatsoever.
`
`Those few dependent claims that do have a temperature limitation require, at
`
`most, “a thermal resistance to degradation at temperatures greater than 650° C.”
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`See ’023 patent at claims 14, 20, and 23; ’982 patent at claims 5, 19, and 23; ’709
`
`patent at claim 12. BASF singles out a single zeolite catalyst, ZSM-5, to argue that
`
`“there was widespread concern as to the thermal stability of zeolite catalysts
`
`generally.” See, e.g., BASF Response, § IV.A.3; see also Heck Treatise, JM 1011,
`
`at 205; BASF-2041; BASF-2042.
`
`The prior art contradicts BASF’s generalization, because other zeolites were
`
`known to have even better thermal stability than ZSM-5 and to display activity up
`
`to 750°C. See JM 1033, page 2, lines 42-44. EP 0508020 (JM 1033) tested three
`
`SCR catalysts to 750°C: a vanadium (non-zeolite) catalyst, a ZSM-5 zeolite
`
`catalyst, and a Y zeolite catalyst. JM 1033 at Figure 2. Based on those
`
`experiments, EP ’020 states “a Cu (II) exchanged Y zeolite [achieves] much higher
`
`activity at a temperature between 300 and 750°C, compared to the widely used
`
`vanadium-titania catalyst.” JM 1033 at page 2, lines 42-44; see also id. at 4, lines
`
`23-24 (activity of “Cu (II) exchanged Y zeolite” “remained in a practical range up
`
`to 750°C”). Importantly, the Y zeolite also displayed better activity than ZSM-5.
`
`See id. at Figure 2. BASF misleadingly selects a zeolite known to display
`
`relatively poor thermal stability compared to other zeolites, despite none of its
`
`claims being limited to ZSM-5.
`
`BASF’s own expert, Dr. Crocker, published an article demonstrating that
`
`zeolite catalysts, including ZSM-5, resisted thermal degradation at 650°C. See JM
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`1030. Figure 3 of Dr. Crocker’s article compares the activity of fresh ZSM-5 to
`
`ZSM-5 aged at 650°C for 48 hours, showing that the aged catalyst actually
`
`performs better at 500°C than the fresh catalyst. Id. Dr. Crocker admitted that
`
`ZSM-5 demonstrated a thermal resistance to degradation at 650°C. Crocker
`
`Transcript, JM 1029, 143:22-144:7 (“one could conceivably characterize it as
`
`showing some resistance to degradation”). Moreover, Dr. Crocker acknowledged
`
`that “catalyst B” in his article was also a zeolite catalyst. JM 1029, 124:10-15.
`
`Figure 5 of Dr. Crocker’s article demonstrates that after “catalyst B” was aged at
`
`650°C for 48 hours, “no loss in activity was observed.” JM 1030 at 3. Figure 8
`
`shows that exposing “catalyst B” to the “severe aging conditions” of 48 hours at
`
`800°C caused “only slightly lower” performance. Id. at 4. Thus, zeolites would
`
`have been expected to fulfill the temperature limitations found in the BASF
`
`Patents.
`
`Speronello itself teaches that its zeolite catalysts displayed excellent activity
`
`and stability at high temperatures, without setting a definite and certain upper limit.
`
`See Speronello, JM 1009, col. 16, lines 28-32 (“The results above show that iron
`
`promoted Beta is a highly active and selective bifunctional catalyst that is
`
`particularly well suited for the SCR process and excess or residual ammonia
`
`oxidation at temperature above about 400° C.”). Speronello tests the activity of its
`
`catalysts up to 600°C, showing that their activity increases with temperature up to
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`about 400°C, then plateaus for the rest of the tested temperature range. See id. at
`
`Figure 2.
`
`Because Speronello does not run tests at higher temperatures, BASF argues
`
`that the catalysts would have been viewed as stable “only up to” (BASF’s
`
`language) 600°C. BASF Response, § IV.A.3. Nothing in Speronello, however,
`
`indicates that 600°C is a critical temperature above which there would be an
`
`immediate and significant drop-off in activity. See Speronello, JM 1009, Figure 2.
`
`BASF seizes on Dr. Harold’s deposition testimony that, “if you just look at
`
`Speronello in an isolated way,” it has no data above 600°C. See BASF Response,
`
`§ IV.A.3 (quoting BASF 2025 at 224:22-225:7). That, however, is not the correct
`
`approach. See Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 834-35 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (rejecting arguments based on “isolated prior art disclosures,” “[b]ecause the
`
`prior art must be considered as a whole”). Here, the prior art considered as a
`
`whole demonstrates that zeolites like Speronello were stable up to 650°C. See JM
`
`1033, Figure 2; JM 1030, Figures 3, 5, & 8; Speronello, JM 1009, col. 16, lines 28-
`
`32.
`
`The claims of the BASF Patents do not have higher temperature limitations,
`
`because the BASF Patents would not support it. See BASF 2033.005 (2008
`
`publication, questioning whether “the current Cu/Zeolite SCR catalyst formulation
`
`[would] withstand the periodic filter regenerations”). The BASF Patents merely
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`select the Speronello catalysts without modifying them. It was not until 2010 that
`
`BASF touted “newly developed SCR catalysts [that] show[ed] high hydrothermal
`
`stability” and described how these new catalysts “open a new path” of combining
`
`“different functions (e.g. removal of particulates and NOx) in only one unit.” JM
`
`1036, 1.
`
`BASF’s decision to claim, oftentimes verbatim, what were known to be the
`
`“best, most stable, SCR catalysts,” see JM 1032, ¶ 14—without modifying or
`
`improving those catalysts—does not make these claims patentable.
`
`IV.
`
`The Hashimoto Wall-Flow Filters Solved The Back-Pressure Problem
`And Were “Prime Candidates For the Catalyzed System.”
`
`In 2002, a year before the priority date of the BASF Patents, Hashimoto
`
`demonstrated that its new, high-porosity filters solved the back-pressure problem
`
`for a catalyst loading of 100 g/L (1.64 g/in3), which is the same catalyst loading
`
`taught by Speronello and claimed by the BASF patents. Hashimoto teaches that its
`
`wall-flow filters were “prime candidates for the catalyzed system.” Hashimoto,
`
`JM 1007, 13.
`
`The specification of the BASF Patents describes the back-pressure problem
`
`as the main obstacle to an SCR-catalyzed filter. ’982 Patent, col. 2, line 65 to col.
`
`3, line 10. The specification describes how the relatively high catalyst loadings
`
`needed for an SCR-catalyzed filter “can lead to unacceptably high back pressure
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket No: 38411-0005IP1
`within the exhaust system” and how an SCR-catalyzed filter that displayed
`
`acceptable back-pressure was “desirable.” Id.
`
`Hashimoto demonstrated that its high-porosity filters displayed acceptable
`
`back-pressure. Hashimoto, JM 1007, 12-13. Hashimoto’s DHC-611 filter is the
`
`same wall-flow filter—and the only wall-flow filter—described in the specification
`
`of the BASF Patents. See Tennent Decl., JM 1003, ¶ 32. Hashimoto teaches that
`
`“the porosity and mean pore size … are critical for the catalyzed” wall-flow filter
`
`to achieve acceptable back-pressure. See Hashimoto, JM 1007, 13. The BASF
`
`Patents simply adopt the porosity and mean pore size of the Hashimoto filters.