`Oral Argument
`
`Johnson Matthey Inc. and Johnson Matthey PLC v. BASF Corporation
`
`Case IPR2015‐01267
`Case IPR2015‐01266
`Case IPR2015‐01265
`U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023 U.S. Patent No. 9,039,982 U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709
`
`August 23, 2016
`
`1
`
`
`
`BASF Patents: ’709, ’023, And ’982 Patents
`
`’709 Patent
`Filed: February 20, 2007
`•
`Issued: May 19, 2015
`•
`• Priority Date: August 5, 2003
`
`’023 Patent
`Filed: October 17, 2011
`•
`Issued: December 2, 2014
`•
`• Priority Date: August 5, 2003
`
`’982 Patent
`Filed: September 26, 2014
`•
`Issued: May 26, 2015
`•
`• Priority Date: August 5, 2003
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Claims
`
`’709 Patent (method)
`
`’023 Patent (system)
`
`’982 Patent (catalyst article)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Indep. Claim 1
`‐Oxidation catalyst
`‐Metered ammonia
`‐SCR catalyzed wall flow
`monolith
`‐50%‐60% porosity
`‐Pore size 10‐25μm
`‐Zeolite & base metal
`catalyst
`‐Washcoat loaded up
`to 2.4 g/in3
`‐Integrated NOx and
`PM removal
`
`Indep. Claim 20
`‐Washcoat loading of at
`least 1.3 g/in3
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Indep. Claim 1
`‐Oxidation catalyst
`‐Injector meters ammonia
`‐SCR catalyzed wall flow
`monolith
`‐50%‐60% porosity
`‐Pore size 10‐25μm
`‐Zeolite & base metal
`catalyst
`‐Washcoat loaded up
`to 2.4 g/in3
`‐Integrated NOx and
`PM removal
`
`Indep. Claim 16
`‐Washcoat loading of at
`least 1.3 g/in3
`
`Indep. Claim 22
`‐50%‐55% porosity
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Indep. Claim 1
`‐SCR catalyzed wall flow
`monolith
`‐50%‐60% porosity
`‐Pore size 10‐25μm
`‐Zeolite & base metal
`catalyst
`‐Washcoat loaded up
`to 2.4 g/in3
`‐Integrated NOx and
`PM removal
`
`Indep. Claim 16
`‐Washcoat loaded up to
`1.3 g/in3
`
`Indep. Claim 22
`‐50%‐55% porosity
`
`3
`
`
`
`BASF Patents: Solution To Challenge Facing The Industry
`
`Solution: Unique Catalyzed Filter
` Highly porous wall flow filter
` Porosity: 50% - 60%
` Avg. Pore Size: 10 – 25
`microns
` SCR Catalyst composition is part
`of a slurry-loaded washcoat that
`permeates filter walls SCR
` SCR Catalyst comprised of a
`zeolite and base metal of either
`copper or iron
` Catalyst loading up to 2.4g/in3
` Simultaneous effective chemical
`reduction of NOx and oxidation of
`soot
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Industry Required High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Ex. 1003 (Declaration of David L. Tennent, Ph.D. ) at ¶26
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.38).
`5
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Industry Required High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. So your testimony is that the industry as a whole believed
`that you needed a high amount of SCR washcoat to be loaded
`onto the walls of a high-porosity filter and you believe the
`industry believed that was required as of the end of 2002;
`right?
`A. Absolutely.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 105:10‐16
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 38).
`6
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: No Art With High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. So you don’t actually cite any art that discloses a high SCR
`washcoat onto a high porosity filter; correct?
`A. Not in that, no, I do not cite that combination.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 104:4‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 39).
`7
`
`
`
`Dr. Harold: No Art With SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. What’s your best estimate of when you first became aware of
`a published report of a DPF washcoated with an SCR
`catalyst, putting aside Hüthwohl?
`A. I believe it would probably be the BASF patent.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 152:24‐153:6
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 39).
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motivations: Real-World Operating Needs
`
`When clroosing an SCR catalyst. tlrerefore.
`
`Efi
`
`‘-.‘e‘.\t'=I'~.’:'j.‘-.IJ?J".L:.fi|,
`
`ih'-aE~.'r=.."..'- ?'.h.'Ir2;?,‘.n'._ un:~;=:r::>;:<:=r:amy :1-r.-> 5.‘:-*:'.-iir‘:".r:"'.
`
`I
`
`I
`
`’J‘l'(-"'.u.'I1::.-'
`r-.
`-"-|'.'1.->-
`Y.‘
`'I. v_--
`~
`-
`.‘ _. '.J|._.-:-». iL:I_i]' *.1~;"}!_i..i
`
`.
`
`!-\‘r/
`r"r'.*--..‘.
`'I.'-'.
`-.---'--i--
`-;-.‘
`".-
`-_
`:;-;;J3.;.J!,.'i'.._._'._.:- _!L'-5'-4..‘-.,.'f-_J'.:1 |_'.J-1.4
`
`.f.-'-1.fi‘I..-v'.i'I---'.:..~ -3
`!;[J-._'-¢In__J.L_'.’_"-1:J|_!{
`
`.1
`
`backpressure. See. infra. § IVA (discussing the structure of wall flow filters and
`
`the k11ow11111ea11s to clear a filter of trapped soot).
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motivations: Real-World Operating Needs
`
`wherein the
`wall flow
`
`monolith
`
`comprises a
`washcoat of
`
`SCR catalyst
`composition
`that permeates
`the walls. the
`
`SCR catalyst
`composition
`comprising a
`zeolite and
`base metal
`
`component
`selected from
`one or more of
`
`a copper and
`iron
`
`component-
`
`Hiithwohl + Hashimoto + Speronello, in view of
`Teraoka
`
`Speronello. Teaches an "iron andior copper-promoted
`zeolite catalyst.“ col. 3. line 60. prepared by "dipping” the
`substrate into a slurrv of an iron or c o J’ zeolite. col. ?.
`F-'
`r.r.‘-.=r.'-r-LI.:.-._-
`.<.1i "tr
`ufli'::-:r-'.- 1'-tn)‘: r.~.-r.—.tr.'t'a):L-. {fir-1:,
`
`n,.-»-‘uitc..:lI:¢;::c1:t-1:".-c.
`
`.
`
`_.'1:.
`
`.I"-1-;n'at;::;-.-:IE.LI-s:f'§'i'r1thJ!'!:t%-, “[B]}" utilizing suitable
`zeolite catalysts in accordance with the teachings of
`the present invention. high temperature gaseous
`streams. for example. gaseous streams at
`temperatures up to about 600" C .. maybe treated
`without seriously adversely affecting the life or
`efficiency of the catalyst." ('01. 6- lines 16-23.
`"Suitable promoted zeolite mate-rials demonstrate
`sufficient thermal and hydrothermal stability to ...
`provide an acceptably long life and efficiency of the
`catalysts." Col. 6. lines 23-25.
`
`.-"m5'f.'u. "II"-.=i'r.-.-v.-:un::.' "The tolerance of the catalyst
`material for such sulfurous contaminants is
`
`increased. i.e.. the catalyst is rendered more resistant
`to sulfur poisoning. by selecting" one of the
`disclosed zeolites. Col. 6. lines 38-41. "The most
`
`preferred types of zeolite for resistance to sulfur
`poisoning are those which have a pore system in
`which the 7 to S Angstrom diameter pores are
`interconnected in all three crystallograpltic
`dimensions." Col. 6. lines 46-49.
`
`I§:‘I.|..":_..~_;»'
`
`Il".t.-.u);~.r.pg:,t .~:;(:):: l.‘-,".'i'F;;.;. (ca. 31- ~._-7 The djgcloged
`
`Examples "demonstrate the [N0x reduction]
`efiicacy
`of the present invention." C 01. 8. lines
`1 2-13. "Tt will be appreciated that the catalysts of
`the present invention provide a simple and relatively
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motivations: Real‐World Operating Needs
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review, p. 32).
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motivations: Real‐World Operating Needs
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review, p. 25.
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply: Ignores Real‐World Operating Needs
`
`Paper 23, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 3.
`13
`
`
`
`The State of The Art
`
`14
`
`
`
`No Pre‐Existing Answers For New EU Emissions Standards
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709, pp. 23‐24.
`15
`
`
`
`The NOx‐Particulate Tradeoff
`
`Ex. 1011 (Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)) at 191
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 7).
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2000: Divide and Conquer
`
`Ex. 2034 (Guy R. Chandler, et al., An Integrated SCR and Continuously Regenerating Trap
`System to Meet Future Nox and PM Legislation, Diesel Exhaust Aftertreatment, 2000), at .003
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 40).
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2003: Still Divide and Conquer
`
`Ex. 2027 (Philip G. Blakeman, et al. Developments in Diesel Emission Aftertreatment
`Technology, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2003) at .007
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 8).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NO2 Is Key For Soot Oxidation
`
`A. So definitely in the ’90s the community would have known
`that NO2 was an integral part of an oxidant to help in soot
`reduction.
`
`A. As we talked about earlier, NO2 is a very good oxidant of soot
`and is key to bringing the light-off temperature of soot down
`and enabling passive regeneration to be more easily
`accomplished.
`
`A. So that the combination of a catalyst, the presence of NO2,
`which reduces the oxidation temperature, those are both key
`to the continuous regeneration to occur.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 98:12‐15, 101:23‐102:2, 102:21‐24
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 10‐11).
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NO2 Is Integral For Soot Oxidation
`
`A. The addition of NO2 to a large surplus of O2 can serve to
`reduce the temperature needed to combust the soot. So that’s
`well-known.
`Q. Okay. And that was well-known as of August 2003?
`A. I believe so, yes.
`Q. And that was an important consideration in passive filter
`regeneration as of August 2003?
`A. I believe so, yes.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 56:1‐11
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 10).
`20
`
`
`
`2005: Ensuring Adequate NO2 Supply ‐‐ A “Major Task”
`
`Ex. 2029 (K.V.R. Babu, et al., The Effect of Nox/Soot Ratio on the Regeneration Behaviour of Catalysed
`Diesel Particulate Filters for Heavy Duty Applications, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2005), at .002
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 22).
`21
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR To Preserve NO2
`
`Ex. 2027 (Philip G. Blakeman, et al. Developments in Diesel Emission
`Aftertreatment Technology, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2003), at .010
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`22
`
`
`
`2014: Filter Still Upstream Of SCR To Preserve NO2
`
`Ex. 2030 (Kenneth G. Rappé, Integrated Selective Catalytic Reductions—Diesel Particulate
`Filter Aftertreatment: Insights into Pressure Drop, NOx Conversion, and Passive Soot
`Oxidation Behavior, I&EC Research, 2014), at .002
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 22).
`
`23
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2000: Filter Upstream of SCR
`
`Ex. 2034 (Guy R. Chandler, et al., An Integrated SCR and Continuously Regenerating Trap System to
`Meet Future Nox and PM Legislation, Diesel Exhaust Aftertreatment, 2000), at .005, Fig. 3
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 41).
`24
`
`
`
`2001: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`Ex. 2035 (J. Gieshoff, et al., Regeneration of Catalytic Diesel Particulate Filters, Diesel Exhaust
`Emission Control: Diesel Particulate Filters, 2001), at .011, Fig. 21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 41).
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioner in 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`Ex. 2019 (Andrew P. Walker, et al., The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR‐Trap Systems: A
`4‐Way Diesel Emission Control Systems, Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control, 2003) at .004, Fig. 1
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 44).
`
`26
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Motivation To
`Combine And No Reasonable
`Expectation Of Success
`
`27
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl’s System
`
`Ex. 1006 (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), at 136
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.34).
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NO2 Is Key For Soot Oxidation
`
`A. So definitely in the ’90s the community would have known
`that NO2 was an integral part of an oxidant to help in soot
`reduction.
`
`A. As we talked about earlier, NO2 is a very good oxidant of soot
`and is key to bringing the light-off temperature of soot down
`and enabling passive regeneration to be more easily
`accomplished.
`
`A. So that the combination of a catalyst, the presence of NO2,
`which reduces the oxidation temperature, those are both key
`to the continuous regeneration to occur.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 98:12‐15, 101:23‐102:2, 102:21‐24
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 10‐11).
`29
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: No Synergy With SCR On Filter
`
`A. So soot traps and catalyzed soot traps were well along before
`it was demonstrated that you could combine or put SCR onto
`a diesel particulate filter. And it’s kind of an obvious reason,
`putting an oxidation catalyst on a diesel particulate filter
`enhances the performance of the diesel particulate filter,
`whereas putting and SCR function on a diesel particulate
`filter brings another function into the system. So it’s bringing
`two technologies together rather than optimizing one
`technology.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 110:24‐111:10
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`30
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Avoid SCR
`
`A. Well, if you can avoid the SCR, then you can focus, for
`example, on the particulate filter by itself, and that would
`enable a strategy of , for example, EGR to reduce NOx and
`then continue to develop the particulate filter without having
`to worry about yet another technology. So I guess that gets
`back to cost and complexity. So those are the main factors.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 143:21‐144:3
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 16).
`31
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Obvious Benefits To Avoiding SCR
`
`A. I think also a significant cost is incurred by putting an SCR
`system on a vehicle. So there’s obvious benefits to avoiding it
`as long as possible.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 143:2‐5
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 15).
`32
`
`
`
`NH3 Oxidation Will Take Place On The Filter
`
`Ex. 2031 (Pranit S. Metkar, et al., Experimental study of mass transfer limitations in Fe‐
`and Cu‐Zeolite‐based NH3‐SCR monolithic catalysts, Chemical Engineering Science,
`2011), at .002
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 24).
`
`33
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Concerns About NH3 Oxidation
`
`Q. Okay. What were some of the other complications that arise
`from having to do reduction in a net-oxidizing environment?
`A. Well, definitely the one that we’ve talked about, ammonia
`consumption by oxygen, would be a tradeoff, no doubt about
`that. That would be the main one.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 116:8‐14
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 22).
`34
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s NH3 Oxidation Complication Known in 2003
`
`Q. Okay. And this complication you mentioned about the
`reductant being consumed by the oxidant, that’s something
`that was known in 2003; correct?
`A. Uh-huh.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 113:14‐18
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 24).
`35
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NH3 Oxidation Is Main Challenge
`
`Q. That’s what I want to know. What were the complications?
`A. Well, in a sense that’s a complication because you don’t know
`how much of that reduction will occur to supplement the
`reduction that is lost by ammonia consumption. So that can
`only be done by throwing everything together and measuring
`the outcome. And Hüthwohl showed that you can do it.
`So I guess in answer to your question, the main challenge is
`ammonia oxidation. And whenever you combine two things
`together, you don’t really know what the outcome is going to
`be because of all the synergies and couplings. So as
`Hüthwohl showed, without necessarily understanding
`everything, the benefits outweighed the risks.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 117:6‐21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 25‐26).
`36
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Put SCR On Filter To Save Space
`
`Ex. 1004 (Declaration of Michael P. Harold, Ph.D. ) at ¶34
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`37
`
`
`
`Space Concerns Did Not Motivate SCR On Filter
`
`Ex. 2018 (M. Shelef & R.W. McCabe, Twenty‐five years after introduction of automotive
`catalysts: what next?, Catalysis Today, 2000), at .012
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 40).
`38
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Space Concerns Did Not Motivate SCR On Filter
`
`Ex. 2019 (Andrew P. Walker, et al., The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR‐Trap
`Systems: A 4‐Way Diesel Emission Control Systems, Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control, 2003) at .003.
`39
`
`
`
`Petitioner in 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`Ex. 2019 (Andrew P. Walker, et al., The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR‐Trap Systems: A
`4‐Way Diesel Emission Control Systems, Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control, 2003) at .004, Fig. 1
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 44).
`
`40
`
`
`
`The State Of The Art In 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`41
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No NOx Reduction Data
`
`Q. Okay. And, in fact, we talked about this earlier, we don’t
`have any idea how much reduction of NOx is happening in
`that coated particle filter, do we?
`A. We don’t know.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 198:22‐199:2
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.35).
`42
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About The Catalyst
`
`Q. You understand – we talked about this earlier – we don’t
`know what kind of catalyst is being used in the Hüthwohl
`system; right?
`A. It doesn’t really get into detail on what SCR catalyst is used.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 193:15‐19
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`43
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Catalyst Loading
`
`Q. You don’t have any idea what the loading is on the particle
`filter, do you?
`A. No.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 203:9‐11
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`44
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Catalyst Loading
`
`Q. Okay. And it could have been that the coating on the
`downstream SCR catalyst is substantially higher than the
`coating on the upstream catalyst; right?
`A. Or it could be less.
`Q. We don’t know, do we?
`A. No.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 204:14‐20
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp.36‐37).
`45
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Regeneration Mode
`
`Q. You don’t know one way or the other whether the Hüthwohl
`system is doing active regeneration?
`A. I don’t know.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 53:5‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`46
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Filter Stability
`
`Q. He doesn’t tell you anything about the stability of the system
`during filter regeneration; right?
`A. I don’t believe so.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 194:25‐195:3
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`47
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: Unclear About Whether SCR Is On DPF
`
`Q. It says: “In diesel engine operation, however, this can only”
`be “achieved by combining a particle filter with an SCR
`catalyst.” Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And so that could be referring to using an SCR
`catalyst downstream of uncoated DPF, right?
`A. Right.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 189:1‐9
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`48
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: Unclear About Whether SCR Is On DPF
`
`Q. But reading [Hüthwohl] as a whole and all the statements
`that he’s included in there, you agree with me, he’s not
`saying that the SCR catalyst has to be coated onto the DPF;
`right? He’s not saying that, is he?
`A. I can’t draw that conclusion because I can’t read his mind.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 195:5‐11
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`49
`
`
`
`Speronello: No Motivation To
`Combine And No Reasonable
`Expectation Of Success
`
`50
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motivation: Pick Catalyst To Survive Regeneration
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review, pp. 27‐28.
`
`51
`
`
`
`BASF’s Patents: Regeneration Temperatures Exceed 700°C
`
`Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709), at 3:3‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.27).
`52
`
`
`
`BASF’s Patents: Regeneration Temperatures Exceed 650°C
`
`Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709), at 7:51‐53
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.27).
`53
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Regeneration Temperatures Exceed 800°C
`
`A. If you build up enough soot in the filter, you can easily see a
`temperature of about 800 degrees C, which would be
`detrimental to a zeolite structure.
`Q. And that’s even in the systems designed to primarily use
`passive filter regeneration?
`A. Yes. It all depends upon how the person drives.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 52:23‐53:5
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 28).
`54
`
`
`
`Known Zeolite Catalysts Unstable At Regeneration
`
`Ex. 1011 (Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)), at 205
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp.29‐30).
`55
`
`
`
`Speronello: Zeolite Catalysts Stable Only Up To 600°C
`
`Ex. 1008 (U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497), at 6:17‐22
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.28).
`56
`
`
`
`Speronello: Zeolite Catalysts Stable Only Up To 600°C
`
`Q. Does the Speronello application provide any reason to believe
`that the zeolite catalyst disclosed in there would be
`hydrothermally stable at temperatures greater than 650
`degrees Celsius?
`A. Probably not because Speronello was limited to 600. so if you
`just look at Speronello in an isolated way, basically that
`would confine to applications where you don’t expect to
`exceed 600, which would be getting back to what I said
`earlier, CRT® application.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 224:22‐225:7
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 28‐29).
`57
`
`
`
`Speronello: Zeolite Catalysts Stable Only Up To 600°C
`
`Q. Okay. So someone of skill in the art in 2003 looking at
`Speronello would understand this as saying the catalyst
`disclosed in this patent will perform adequately and
`hydrothermally stable up to 600 degrees Celsius; right?
`A. Yeah. The answers is the interpretation is up to 600 degrees
`Centigrade for these particular zeolite catalysts.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 218:12‐15
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.29).
`58
`
`
`
`Speronello: Proposes Beta Zeolites
`
`Q. Well, let me just ask you: Based on your memory of having
`studied the Speronello patent and all the work you’ve done in
`this case, what are the specific types of catalysts that you
`understand are recommended by Speronello? Earlier you
`mentioned the beta. Are those the ones that you recollect?
`A. Well, I believe that beta was one of the zeolites.
`Q. Okay. What are the other ones you understand Speronello to
`be recommending?
`A. That’s the main one that I remember.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 72:1‐7
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.30).
`59
`
`
`
`Speronello: Proposes Beta Zeolites
`
`Q. So when you refer to “the Speronello catalysts” in Paragraph
`42, you are referring to the copper and iron beta catalysts?
`A. Right.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 228:22‐25
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.30).
`60
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: No Diesel Art Using Speronello
`
`Q. Your declaration doesn't cite any reports between 1996 and
`the filing of the BASF patent that involved the use of the
`Speronello beta catalysts for either coating a DPF or in a
`diesel after treatment system generally; right?
`A. Definitely not of coating a diesel particulate filter. Again, I
`only refer to five references in my declaration. That doesn't
`mean that there weren't other studies being done – I know
`there were – of copper and iron zeolite catalysts. There were
`a myriad of them going on in that time period.
`Q. But you don't cite any report involving the beta catalysts in
`the use of a diesel exhaust aftertreatment system, do you?
`A. I don't cite any, no.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 241:11‐242:1
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.30).
`
`61
`
`
`
`Known Catalysts Inadequate For NOx Reduction
`
`Ex. 1011 (Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)) at 204
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 6).
`62
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Teraoka’s Zeolite Of “Dubious Use”
`
`Q. Now, we talked earlier about copper ZSM-5. That’s the
`catalyst that’s used in Teraoka and that’s the catalyst that
`we know is not going to have sufficient thermal stability [in]
`an active filter regeneration situation; right?
`A. Well, I think it’s recognized that its thermal stability is in the
`range of 6 to 7 hundred, so it might be of dubious use.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 235:17‐24
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 48).
`63
`
`
`
`Hashimoto: No Motivation To
`Combine And No Reasonable
`Expectation Of Success
`
`64
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Stability Required Thick Walls
`
`Q. And so in 2005 the belief of the skilled artisan was that due
`to the low thermal expansion – excuse me – the low heat
`capacity of cordierite, you had to have thicker walls?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And that was the understanding in 2003 as well?
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 131:8‐19
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 12).
`65
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Stability Required Low Porosity
`
`A. And when you add porosity to any filter material, you
`increase the tortuous path, it will decrease the effect of
`thermal conductance.
`Q. And that was understood not just in 2006 but in 2003 as
`well?
`A. Just a fundamental physical property; yes.
`Q. And that was the conventional wisdom in 2003 regarding the
`parameters that would impact the survivability of a filter?
`A. Absolutely.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 140:9‐21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 12).
`66
`
`
`
`Balancing Filter Porosity And Durability Was Not Routine
`
`Ex. 2020 (High Porosity Cordierite Filter Development For Nox/PM Reduction in
`Developments in Advanced Ceramics And Composites, 2005), at 2020.009
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 45).
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Hashimoto Omits Durability Issues
`
`Q. Right. But Hashimoto didn’t address the balance between
`high porosity and thermo-mechanical durability, did it?
`A. I don’t believe so.
`Q. Okay. And that was still something that was viewed as a
`challenge in 2005; right?
`A. Well, according to these authors.
`Q. Do you disagree with that?
`A. No.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 210:8‐16
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 46).
`68
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`69
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Long Felt Need Existed
`
`Q. So is it fair to say that as early as 1998 the industry felt the
`need for a system that could meet emission standards?
`A. Yes, I think it would be fair to say.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 77:13‐16
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 50).
`70
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Long Felt Need Existed
`
`A. If you came up with a solution for this problem, you would
`have the potential for a very large market, millions of cars,
`all the heavy-duty trucks.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 37:1‐4
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 50).
`71
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Nexus Between Claims And Emission Standards
`
`Q. Okay. Since you say this was required, those things that we
`just referred to, the SCR coating, the high washcoating, the
`high porosity, since you state that those are required, the
`skilled artisan would agree that those were the important
`and critical elements for meeting the emission standard, and
`saving valuable space; right?
`A. So it is certainly part of the requirements. I mean, it may not
`be all the requirements, but it’s certainly part of the
`requirements.
`Q. Those were important requirements; right?
`A. So those were important requirements.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 100:4‐21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 51).
`72
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: No Art With High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. So you don’t actually cite any art that discloses a high SCR
`washcoat onto a high porosity filter; correct?
`A. Not in that, no, I do not cite that combination.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 104:4‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 39).
`73
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Characterization Of SCR On Filter In 2008
`
`Ex. 2033 (Jong H. Lee, et al., Evaluation of Cu‐Based SCR/DPF Technology for Diesel
`Exhaust Emission Control, SAE International, 2008), at .001
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 52).
`74
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Related To
`Coating Both Sides Of The
`Filter
`
`75
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims With SCR Catalyst On Both Sides Of Filter
`
`(IPR2015‐01267 Exhibit 1001, ’709 patent, Claim 11).
`
`(IPR2015‐01266, Exhibit 1001, ’982 patent, Claim 15).
`
`(IPR2015‐01265 , Exhibit 1001, ’023 patent, Claim 11).
`
`76
`
`
`
`’294 Patent Only Coats The Outside Of The Filter
`
`Ex. 1003 (Declaration of David L. Tennent, Ph.D. ) at ¶44
`citing Fig. 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,753,294
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 58).
`77
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Product‐By‐Process Arguments Are Meritless
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments
`
`The Claims
`
`(cited in Paper 23, IPR2015‐01267 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`
`(cited in Paper 23, IPR2015‐01266 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`
`(cited in Paper 23, IPR2015‐01265 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`
`(IPR2015‐01267 Exhibit 1001, Claim 11).
`
`(IPR2015‐01266 Exhibit 1001, Claim 11).
`
`(IPR2015‐01265 Exhibit 1001, Claim 11).
`
`78
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`79
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Declaration Lacks Supporting Data
`
`Q. Okay. And again, the details of that something you are not
`willing to provide due to confidentiality issues; right?
`A. Yes. I cannot tell you who we deployed materials to, no.
`Q. You can’t even tell us who was asking for the materials;
`right?
`A. No, I will not tell you who was asking, other than I will tell
`you in general it was catalyst companies and it was the car
`companies and the truck companies. But I will not give you
`specific companies, no.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 109:9‐20
`
`80
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 18, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR THE 2015-01265,
`
`2015-01266 AND 2015-01267 was served via electronic mail, upon the following
`
`counsel of record:
`
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Gwilym J. Attwell
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR38411-0005IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`/ Timothy J. Andersen / a
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com