`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`
` Entered: December 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`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
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Johnson Matthey Inc., and Johnson Matthey Plc (collectively
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition seeking inter partes review of claims 1–27 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,039,982 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’982 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). BASF Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying
`the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–27 as
`discussed below.
`Our findings of fact and conclusions of law are based on the record
`developed thus far, prior to the Patent Owner’s Response. This is not a final
`decision as to the patentability of any challenged claim. Any final decision
`will be based on the full record developed during trial.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’982 patent issued from Application No.
`14/497,454, which was a continuation of Application No. 13/274,635 (now
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023), which itself was a continuation of
`Application No. 11/676,798 (now issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709),
`itself a divisional of Application No. 10/634,659 (now issued as U.S. Patent
`No. 7,229,597). Pet. 2. Petitioner filed IPR petitions challenging the claims
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023 (IPR2015-01265) and U.S. Patent No.
`9,032,709 (IPR2015-01267). Id.; Paper 6. Petitioner also identifies pending
`inter partes reexamination proceedings pertaining to U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`No. 7,229,597 (Reexam No. 95/001,745) and another patent in the same
`family, U.S. Patent No. 7,902,107 (Reexam No. 95/001,744). Pet. 2.
`B. The ’982 Patent
`The ’982 patent, titled “Catalyzed SCR Filter and Emission Treatment
`System,” issued on May 26, 2015. The ’982 patent discloses “a catalyst
`article for simultaneously remediating the nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate
`matter, and gaseous hydrocarbons present in diesel engine exhaust streams.”
`Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`The ’982 patent teaches that several filter structures effective in
`physically removing particulate matter from diesel exhaust were known in
`the art. Id. at 2:13–29. According to the Specification, these filters are
`capable of removing over 90% of the particulate matter from diesel exhaust.
`Id. One example of a filter suitable for use in the claimed invention is a wall
`flow filter, and is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 of the ’982 patent,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a “perspective view” of wall flow filter substrate 30,
`and Figure 3 shows a cross sectional view of the substrate shown in Figure
`2, as annotated by Patent Owner with a red line to depict a representative
`passageway for exhaust gas through the substrate. Id. at 5:64–67, 9:10–20;
`see Prelim. Resp. 8. As shown in these figures, substrate 30 has inlet end
`54, outlet end 56, and a plurality of fine, substantially-parallel gas flow
`passages extending along the longitudinal axis of the substrate. Ex. 1001,
`Figs. 2, 3, 8:62–65. Alternate passages are plugged at the inlet end with
`plugs 58, and at the outlet end with plugs 60. Id. at 9:13–16. This forms a
`checkerboard pattern (as depicted in figure 2) at inlet end 54 and outlet end
`56. Id. In this configuration, a gas stream cannot enter and exit the substrate
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`through the same passage. Id. at 9:16–20. Instead, a gas stream entering
`through an unplugged channel inlet (e.g., 64) is stopped by outlet plug 60 in
`that passage, and must diffuse through a porous channel wall (e.g., 53) in
`order to exit out of channel outlet 66. Id. As the gas passes through the
`porous channel wall, particulate matter in the gas is trapped therein.
`According to the ’982 patent, “[t]ypical wall flow filters in commercial use”
`are formed with wall porosities from about 35% to 50%, and have a “very
`broad” pore size distribution, with a mean pore size typically smaller than 17
`microns. Id. at 9:51–56.
`The ’982 patent teaches that as particulate matter accumulates on the
`filter, the back pressure from the filter on the engine increases. Id. at 2:21–
`24. Therefore, these particles must be continuously or periodically burned
`out of the filter to maintain an acceptable back pressure. Id. at 2:24–26.
`This is referred to as filter regeneration. Id. at 2:38–39. Typically, a
`temperature in excess of 500o C is required to burn the carbon soot particles,
`which is above the temperature normally present in diesel exhaust. Id. at
`2:26–29. Therefore, provisions, such as a catalyst, are generally introduced
`to lower the soot burning temperature to those present under normal diesel
`engine operating conditions. Id. at 2:30–39.
`The ’982 patent also describes Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”),
`a process wherein NOx is reduced, by a reductant such as ammonia, to
`nitrogen in the presence of a catalyst typically composed of base metals, as a
`“proven NOx abatement technology applied to stationary sources,” and
`discloses that SCR is under development for mobile applications. Id. at
`1:19–20, 2:40–50.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`The ’982 patent explains that a sufficient loading of SCR catalyst
`composition is required to achieve NOx reduction goals on a coated soot
`filter, but cautions that higher catalyst coatings can lead to unacceptable
`back pressure within the exhaust system. Id. at 3:4–6. The Specification
`also teaches that a durable SCR catalyst, e.g., one that maintains catalytic
`activity after exposure to high temperatures and has a wider operating
`temperature range, is desirable. Id. at 3:13–25.
`According to the ’982 patent “[i]ntegration of NOx reduction and
`particulate removal functions into a single catalyst article is accomplished
`using a wall flow substrate coated with an SCR catalyst composition.” Id. at
`6:30–32. The claimed invention requires wall flow substrates to be coated
`with practical levels of SCR catalyst to achieve desired NOx reduction levels
`and effectively remove particulate matter without causing excessive
`backpressure, while also lowering the combustion temperature of the soot
`fraction trapped on the filter. Id. at 6:33–48, 7:36–38. To achieve this,
`the ’982 patent teaches depositing SCR catalysts at a concentration of at
`least 1.3 g/in3, preferably between 1.6 and 2.4 g/in3 (id. at 8:54–61), and
`using a wall flow substrate having a preferred pore size of at least 5 microns
`and porosity of at least 50% (id. at 9:37–40).
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–27 of the ’982 patent. Independent
`
`claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
`1. A catalyst article consisting essentially of a wall flow
`monolith and a catalytic material, wherein the wall flow
`monolith has a plurality of longitudinally extending passages
`formed by longitudinally extending walls bounding and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`defining said passages, wherein the passages comprise inlet
`passages having an open inlet end and a closed outlet end,
`and outlet passages having a closed inlet end and an open
`outlet end, the wall flow monolith has a porosity of from
`50% to 60% and an average pore size of from 10 to 25
`microns, and the wall flow monolith contains the catalytic
`material;
`wherein the catalytic material comprises an SCR
`catalyst composition including a slurry-loaded
`washcoat of a zeolite and base metal selected from
`copper, the washcoat permeating the walls at a
`loading up to 2.4 g/in3, the wall flow monolith
`having integrated, NOx and particulate removal
`efficiency in which presence of the catalytic
`material in the wall flow monolith catalyzes the
`oxidation of soot.
`Ex. 1001, 15:47–64. Independent claims 16 and 22 are substantially similar
`to claim 1, with claim 16 additionally reciting that “the washcoat
`permeating the walls at a loading up to 1.3 g/in3” (id. at 16:46–64), and
`independent claim 22 requiring only that the catalyst article contains a
`washcoat, without reciting a particular loading amount (id. at 17:13–18:5).
`The dependent claims of the ’982 patent recite further requirements of the
`wall flow filter or the SCR catalyst composition.
`
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Georg Hüthwohl et al., 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, Dresdner
`Motorkolloquium, May 20–21, 1999 at 129 (“Hüthwohl,” Ex. 1006; certified
`translation provided at Ex. 1005).
`S. Hashimoto et al., SiC and Cordierite Diesel Particulate Filters Designed
`for Low Pressure Drop and Catalyzed, Uncatalyzed Systems, Diesel Exhaust
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`Emission Control 2002: Diesel Particulate Filters (SP-1673), reprinted in
`SAE Technical Paper Series 2002-01-0322 (“Hashimoto,” Ex. 1007).
`Speronello et al., US 5,516,497, issued May 14, 1996 (“Speronello,” Ex.
`1008).
`Yasutake Teraoka et al., Simultaneous Catalytic Removal of Nitrogen Oxides
`and Soot by Copper-Loaded MFI Zeolites, CHEMISTRY LETTERS 2001 at 604
`(“Teraoka,” Ex. 1009).
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Statutory Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`1–27
`
`References
`Hüthwohl, Speronello,
`Hashimoto, and Teraoka
`
`Petitioner also relies on declarations from Dr. David L. Tennent,
`Ph.D. (“Tennent Declaration,” Ex. 1003) and Dr. Michael P. Harold, Ph.D.
`(“Harold Declaration,” Ex. 1004).
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`We determine that no express claim construction is required for purposes of
`this Decision.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`B. References
`1. Hüthwohl
`Hüthwohl explains that in 1998, the EU Environment Council agreed
`
`on new limits for nitrogen oxides and particle emissions for heavy
`commercial vehicles, such as city buses. Ex. 1005, 2.1 These new emission
`standards were scheduled to take effect in 2005 and 2008. Id. at 3.
`Hüthwohl describes a system introduced in 1995, referred to as the CRT®
`system, which includes a highly active oxidation catalyst and a series-
`connected particle filter. Id. According to Hüthwohl, the CRT® system was
`capable of achieving low emissions from an engine running on a certain type
`of fuel, but for diesel engines, excellent emission values “can only [be]
`achieved by combining a particle filter with an SCR catalyst. The
`combination of SCR catalyst and particle filter is known as the SCRT®
`system.” Id. at 4.
`In the SCRT® system, the soot filter of the CRT system is
`
`impregnated with SCR-active material. Id. This combination aids in
`reducing the required physical volume of the system, and allows the system
`to be installed in a city bus. Id. Based on data from tests conducted on the
`SCRT® system, Hüthwohl determines that the SCRT® system “reduces the
`emission of carbon monoxide, particles, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.”
`Id. at 9. Hüthwohl ultimately concludes that “[b]y further optimization of
`the system, a significant improvement of the NOx conversion can be
`expected, so that in [the] future it will be possible to comply with” the 2005
`and 2008 European emission standards. Id. at 14.
`
`
`1 Citations to page numbers for this exhibit refer to those appearing at the
`bottom, in the center of each page of the exhibit.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`
`2. Speronello
`Speronello discloses, inter alia, a “catalyst composition effective for
`reducing nitrogen oxides with ammonia in a gaseous stream.” Ex. 1008,
`3:44–47. Included in this composition are zeolites that may contain iron
`and/or copper. Id. at 3:49–58. Speronello states that the zeolite catalysts
`described therein demonstrate sufficient thermal and hydrothermal stability,
`providing “an acceptably long life and efficiency of the catalysts” even after
`exposure to gaseous streams at temperatures up to about 600o C. Id. at 6:17–
`25. Speronello also describes zeolite catalysts that demonstrate resistance to
`sulfur poisoning and NOx reduction/conversion efficiencies around 90%.
`Id. at 6:34–7:3.
`Speronello teaches that “[a]ny suitable physical form of the catalyst
`may be utilized, such as a monolithic honeycomb-type body containing a
`plurality of fine, parallel gas flow passages extending therethrough, the walls
`of which are coated with the zeolite catalytic material.” Id. at 7:10–15.
`Speronello further states that:
`[t]he physical configuration of the catalyst used in a given case
`will depend on a number of factors such as the space available
`for the catalytic reactor . . . and the permitted or desired amount
`of pressure drop across the catalyst bed. When catalysts are
`used to treat engine exhausts . . . it is usually desired to
`minimize pressure drop in order to enhance the efficiency of the
`engine. In such cases, the preferred physical configuration of
`the catalyst is one which provides parallel flow passageways for
`the gas, such as those found in the above-described honey-
`comb-type catalysts.
`Id. at 7:30–41.
`In the Examples, Speronello describes coating a honeycomb ceramic
`support with a washcoat of synthetic zeolite by immersing the support in a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`zeolite-containing slurry, resulting in loading amounts ranging from 1.5 g/in3
`to 2.0 g/in3. Id. at 8:18–12:48.
`
`3. Hashimoto
`Hashimoto relates to diesel particulate filters, noting that “[t]ighter
`PM emission regulations will be introduced in Europe, United States and
`Japan on passenger cars and trucks over the next 7 years. DPF (diesel
`particulate filter) has been the primary technology considered in meeting
`these tight PM emission limits.” Ex. 1007, 1.2 Hashimoto discloses that the
`addition of a DPF exhaust system increases back engine pressure, and the
`limited amount of space available for DPFs in automobiles makes it difficult
`to provide a sufficient filtration area. Id. Thus, according to Hashimoto,
`“optimizing pressure-drop and trapping efficiency simultaneously is a
`notable challenge for DPF systems.” Id. Hashimoto states that “[a]
`catalyzed DPF system has been proposed as a future PM emission control
`technology.” Id.
`Hashimoto studies the factors that influence pressure drop and
`filtration efficiency of a DPF, and seeks to develop a design and select
`materials for use in DPFs that will minimize pressure drop while
`maintaining its ability to trap particulate matter. See generally id.
`Based on tests conducted on uncatalyzed DPFs, Hashimoto states that
`“it was concluded that a material with high porosity and with high pore sizes
`is desirable to have low pressure drop performance.” Id. at 7. Specifically,
`Hashimoto concludes that the optimum pore size is between 10µm and
`
`
`2 Consistent with the practice of the Petitioner regarding this reference, page
`numbers for this exhibit refer to those appearing at the top, in the center of
`each page.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`70µm. Id. Hashimoto discloses DPF filters having porosity values from
`53% to 65%, and mean pore sizes ranging from 15µm to 35µm. Id. at 10,
`Table 3 (reporting values for DHC-558 and DHC-611).
`
`With regard to catalyzed DPF systems, Hashimoto teaches that
`applying the catalyst washcoat inside the pores reduces the porosity of the
`DPF material and changes the post-coated pore size distribution. Id. at 12.
`Hashimoto measured the pressure-drop across two coated DPFs, DHC-558
`and DHC-611, with a washcoat loading of 100 g/L on each filter.
`Hashimoto compared the performance of the coated filters with the
`performance of the uncoated filters, and noted that the coated filters showed
`an increased pressure drop of 170% and 100%, respectively, over uncoated
`filters. Id. at 13. Because the filter with higher porosity (DHC-611) showed
`a smaller increase in pressure-drop, Hashimoto states that these test results
`“indicate[] that high porosity DPF material has an advantage for a catalyzed
`DPF system,” that “porosity and mean pore size of the DPF materials are
`critical for the catalyzed DPF system,” and that “high porosity material can
`be coated with significantly higher wash coat loading without adversely
`effecting pressure-drop.” Id. Ultimately, Hashimoto states that “SiC and
`Cordierite DPF designed for low pressure-drop are prime candidates for the
`catalyzed system.” Id.
`
`4. Teraoka
`Teraoka teaches that “Cu-loaded MFI zeolites showed the catalytic
`activity for the oxidation of soot and reduction of NOx simultaneously in the
`soot-NOx-O2 reaction system.” Ex. 1009, 604. Similar to the other
`references discussed herein, Teraoka begins by explaining that nitrogen
`oxides and soot particulates emitted from diesel exhaust contribute greatly to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`environmental pollution, and notes the tightening regulation of diesel
`emissions with regard to NOx and particulate matters. Id. Teraoka
`describes studies regarding the simultaneous NOx–soot removal reaction,
`and reports on the “catalytic property of Cu-loaded MFI for the simultaneous
`NOx–soot removal reaction.” Id.
`Teraoka states that the catalytic activity for the simultaneous NOx–
`soot removal was evaluated by packing a mixture of catalyst and activated
`carbon in a reactor, heating the reactor while flowing NO-O2-He gas through
`it, and analyzing the outlet gas. Id. According to Teraoka, the soot that was
`pre-mixed with the catalyst was oxidized by either NOx or O2 to produce
`CO2, and the NOx was reduced by the soot into N2 and N2O. Id. Based on
`this study, Teraoka states that “Cu introduced in MFI zeolites effectively
`works as a catalyst for the simultaneous NOx–soot removal reaction.” Id.
`Teraoka concludes that a Cu MFI zeolite “is a promising NOx–soot
`removal catalyst showing medium soot ignition activity and high selectivity
`to N2 formation.” Id. at 605.
`C. Analysis of Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Petitioner’s Arguments
`Petitioner argues that the subject matter of claims 1–27 would have
`been obvious over Hüthwohl3 in view of Hashimoto and Speronello, and
`further in view of Teraoka.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that Hüthwohl discloses the
`combination of a particle filter with an SCR catalyst to attain improved
`
`
`3 Petitioner contends that Hüthwohl was not relied upon during prosecution
`of the application leading to the ’982 patent or the related reexaminations.
`Pet. 17.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`emission values, but acknowledges that the reference is silent with regard to
`the details of the SCR catalyst and the filter. See Pet. 19, 23–24, 37, 41
`(claim chart). As to the details of the filter, Petitioner asserts that Hashimoto
`discloses a wall flow monolith having a plurality of longitudinally extending
`passages where some passages are blocked at the upstream end and
`unblocked at the downstream end, and other passages are unblocked at the
`upstream end and blocked at the downstream end. Id. at 41. Petitioner
`further asserts that Hashimoto discloses filters with porosity and mean pore
`size values (e.g., DHC-611 filter with 59% porosity and 25 µm pore size)
`that fall within the ranges required in the challenged claims. Id. at 42 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 13).
`With regard to the details of the SCR catalyst, Petitioner asserts that
`Speronello discloses a catalyst formed by dipping a substrate into an iron
`and/or copper-promoted zeolite slurry. Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 7:23–25).
`Petitioner further asserts that Speronello discloses the slurry permeating the
`walls at loadings ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 g/in3, which falls within the
`claimed ranges. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1008, 8:57–60, 9:26–29, 9:60–64,
`10:26–30, 10:64–67, 11:39–42, 12:45–48).
`Petitioner also asserts that Teraoka’s disclosure of Cu-loaded MFI
`zeolites having “catalytic activity for the oxidation of soot and reduction of
`NOx simultaneously” corresponds to the requirement that the claimed wall
`flow monolith has “integrated, NOx and particulate removal efficiency in
`which the presence of the catalytic material in the wall flow monolith
`catalyzes the oxidation of soot.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, Abstract);
`Ex. 1001, 15:61–64.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims of the ’982 patent thus do no
`more than simply take the Hashimoto filter and load it with the Speronello
`catalysts, and then place the resulting structure in Hüthwohl’s design.” Pet.
`34. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to “combine Speronello’s SCR catalysts (which possess
`characteristics particularly well suited for use on a wall flow filter) with
`Hashimoto’s wall flow filter (which in 2002 taught how to accommodate a
`thick catalyst washcoat without getting clogged and causing high back
`pressure) for use in Huthwohl’s [sic] system.” Id. at 26. Petitioner contends
`that Speronello’s catalysts were “the logical choice for use in diesel
`particulate filters as taught by Huthwohl [sic]” because “(1) they were
`known to be stable at high temperatures, (2) they were known to be resistant
`to degradation by sulfur, and (3) they were known to efficiently catalyze the
`reduction of NOx over a wide range of temperatures.” Id. at 20, 26.
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Harold, states that “these three catalyst
`characteristics were crucial when developing a diesel exhaust treatment
`system.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 38. In addition, Petitioner notes that the ’982 patent
`“itself incorporates Speronello by reference ‘in [its] entirety’ and says that it
`‘describe[s]’ ‘[s]uitable SCR catalyst compositions.’ See ’982 patent, col. 8,
`lines 1-4 (Speronello is U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497).” Pet. 29.
`Petitioner likewise asserts that Hashimoto discloses high porosity
`filters that were “‘prime candidates’” for use as catalyzed diesel particulate
`filters, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`that “Hashimoto teaches a filter structure that can be loaded with 100 g/L of
`some catalyst and still yield acceptable backpressure.” Id. at 32–33 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–38, 40). Specifically, Petitioner argues:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`
`Hashimoto’s advance is the amount of catalyst, rather than the
`type of catalyst, loaded into the filter while still achieving
`acceptable backpressure. . . . When trying to accommodate a
`thick catalyst washcoat, therefore, a person skilled in the art
`would have looked to Hashimoto’s teachings that a high-
`porosity filter would maintain acceptable backpressure, despite
`being loaded with 100 g/L of catalyst.
`
`Id..
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner contends that it was known in the art that
`copper oxidizes NO to NO2, and that NO2 was known to oxidize dry carbon
`soot. Id. at 34. According to Petitioner, “[i]t was thus hardly surprising
`when, in 2001, Teraoka expressly taught that a copper zeolite composition
`catalyzes the oxidation of soot.” Id. at 35. In view of this, Petitioner asserts
`that a person of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected that a
`copper zeolite loaded into a wall flow filter would serve two needed
`functions simultaneously: the reduction of NOx emissions and the reduction
`of particulate matter emissions.” Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶60–61).
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Arguments
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner improperly relies upon a hindsight
`reconstruction of the claimed subject matter based on the disclosure in
`the ’982 patent and has done nothing more than show individual elements
`were known in the art, which is not sufficient to support a finding of
`obviousness. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`Addressing the references individually, Patent Owner contends that
`Hüthwohl “omits nearly every essential detail of the claimed invention,”
`including the type and amount of SCR catalyst and the structural details of
`the particle filter. Id. at 16. Patent Owner further contends that Hüthwohl
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`describes a filter that is “impregnated” with a catalyst, which is different
`from the slurry-loaded washcoat technique recited in the ’982 patent. Id. at
`16, 34. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he skilled artisan would have
`recognized that each method has its own constraints and results in marked
`structural differences.” Id. at 34. Patent Owner also contends that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would likely have had to “re-engineer Hüthwohl
`to operate according to different principles” to achieve the claimed
`invention. Id. at 27.
`Patent Owner asserts that Hashimoto focuses on pressure imbalance in
`diesel filters, and “[t]o the extent Hashimoto says anything about catalysts, it
`teaches away from the claimed SCR catalyst by suggesting NOx adsorption
`catalysts.” Id. at 5. According to Patent Owner, Hashimoto only refers to
`types of catalysts that do not operate in the same manner as an SCR catalyst,
`and may interfere with the SCR reaction. Id. at 37–39 (referring to soot
`oxidation catalysts and NOx adsorption catalysts). Patent Owner also argues
`that Hashimoto’s catalyzed DPFs demonstrated an increase in backpressure.
`Id. at 36. According to Patent Owner, the ultimate conclusion in Hashimoto
`regarding catalyzed DPFs is that further studies are required. Id. at 17–18
`(citing Ex. 1007 at 13).
`
`With regard to Speronello, Patent Owner argues that although
`Speronello discloses applying metal promoted SCR zeolite catalysts to a
`substrate, Speronello only discloses coating a honeycomb type flow-through
`substrate, which is not a filter that traps particulate matter. Id. at 5, 18.
`Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not load
`a flow through substrate in the same way as a wall flow substrate. Id. at 41
`(citing Ex. 2012, 184 ¶ 26). Patent Owner further contends that Speronello
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`does not address or consider the problems of increasing back pressure in
`wall flow filters coated with an SCR catalyst. Id. at 40.
`Patent Owner also argues that the Patent Office has already
`considered Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Hashimoto
`and Speronello in detail, and has rejected them repeatedly. Id. at 4. Thus,
`Patent Owner requests that we exercise our discretion and deny the Petition
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Id. at 14, 20.
`Regarding Teraoka, Patent Owner asserts that Teraoka provides no
`information regarding the application of catalysts to automotive filters, and,
`therefore, “there would have been no basis for the skilled artisan to pluck an
`isolated teaching from Teraoka regarding catalysts and then combine that
`teaching with Hüthwohl, Hashimoto, and Speronello.” Id. at 45, 47.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that “the Petition fails to establish the
`requisite reason to combine the cited references because it ignores the
`conventional wisdom of the time and the integral properties of the ’982
`Patent’s claimed catalyst article.” Id. at 25. According to Patent Owner,
`[p]rior to the ’982 patent, the conventional wisdom was that
`“larger pore size, higher porosity wall flow filters should be
`avoided” even though more porous filters would create fewer
`problems with regard to back pressure. But, a highly porous
`structure, those in the art believed, impaired soot filtering
`capability and increased the likelihood of cracking by lowering
`the thermal mass.
`Id. at 28 (quoting Ex. 2012, 227 ¶¶ 11–13) (internal citations omitted).
`Additionally, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner does not
`articulate any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`abandoned the teaching of Hüthwohl regarding the impregnation of the
`SCR-active material on the filter and instead pursued a washcoating
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`technique.” Id. at 34. Nor does Petitioner address, according to Patent
`Owner, how substituting Speronello’s SCR catalyst would affect the
`function and operation of Hashimoto’s filters. Id. at 43. Additionally,
`Patent Owner asserts that “[g]iven Hashimoto’s invitation for continued
`experimentation,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
`motivated to coat Hashimoto’s wall flow filter with Speronello’s catalyst
`because “there was no teaching that the catalysts described by Speronello
`could successfully be applied to the filters described by Hashimoto, much
`less work for the intended purpose.” Id. at 42.
`Patent Owner also contends that the claimed invention of the ’982
`patent was the subject of skepticism, addressed a long-felt, unresolved need,
`demonstrated unexpected results, and received praise. Id. at 47–56.
`3. Analysis
`Upon review, we determine that the record before us establishes a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its assertion that the
`subject matter of claims 1–27 would have been obvious in view of
`Hüthwohl, Hashimoto, Speronello, and Teraoka. Petitioner’s explanation of
`how each claim limitation is taught or suggested by the combination of prior
`art references is reasonable. See, e.g., Pet. 37–48. Additionally, Petitioner’s
`explanation that (1) there was motivation within the automotive industry to
`load an SCR catalyst onto a filter used in diesel exhaust systems, as
`discussed in Hüthwohl, (2) copper zeolite SCR catalysts with beneficial
`properties were known in the art (Speronello), (3) wall flow filters were
`identified as “prime candidates” for use in catalyzed filter systems
`(Hashimoto), and (4) it was reported, prior to the filing date of the ’982
`patent, that copper zeolites could simultaneously reduce NOx emissions and
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982 B2
`
`catalyze the oxidization of soot, supports, on this record, Petitioner’s
`assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
`combine the teachings of the prior art references to arrive at the claimed
`subject matter, and would have done so with a reasonable expectation of
`success. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive on this
`record.
`For example, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`“the Petition fails to establish the requisite reason to combine the cited
`references because it ignores the conventional wisdom of the time and the
`integral properties of the ’982 Patent’s claimed catalyst article.” Prelim.
`Resp. 25. Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`“invitations for continued experimentation” in the references. Id. at 29, 39,
`42. These statements and arguments appear to be undermined by
`Hashimoto’s disclosure of wall-flow filters having pore sizes and porosity
`values corresponding to the ranges recited in the claims, and its statement
`that these filters are “prime candidates” for catalyzed systems. Ex. 1007, 10,
`13. Hashimoto also states that “high porosity material can be coated with
`significantly higher wash coat loading without adversely effecting pressure-
`drop.” Id. at 13. And although Patent Owner contends that Spero