UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHNSON MATTHEY INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 9,032,709
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID L. TENNENT, PH.D.
`
`1
`
`JM 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHNSON MATTHEY INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 9,032,709
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID L. TENNENT, PH.D.
`
`1
`
`JM 1003
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`I, David L. Tennent, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I attach my resume as Exhibit 1 to this declaration.
`
`Experience and Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I graduated in 1974 with a B.S. in Chemistry from Allegheny College.
`
`I then earned a Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry from Purdue University in 1979.
`
`From 1979 to 1980, I was a Postdoctoral Associate at the C.F. Kettering Research
`
`Laboratory.
`
`3.
`
`From 1980 to 2009, I worked for Corning Incorporated, eventually
`
`becoming the Director of Carbon Technologies Development. In that role, I
`
`directed the development efforts for a novel substrate for the removal of mercury
`
`from the exhaust streams of coal fired power plants.
`
`4.
`
`At Corning, from 2000 to 2008, I was a Senior Project Manager and,
`
`in that role, I served as the Research & Development Leader for the development
`
`and commercialization of Corning’s DuraTrap® AT product. DuraTrap® AT is an
`
`aluminum titanate based diesel particulate filter that has excellent pressure drop,
`
`high heat capacity, and superb thermal shock resistance. This is a wall-flow filter
`
`having honeycomb design. The original target was the automotive (light duty)
`
`market, particularly for the diesel engine segment.
`
`5.
`
`In that role, I led the development of a heavy duty version of
`
`DuraTrap® AT as well as the initial development of DuraTrap® AT LP. This later
`
`2
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`product is a lower porosity product which had thinner walls than the original
`
`product.
`
`6.
`
`From 2006 to 2008, I assumed the additional leadership
`
`responsibilities for a team that investigated the interactions of different catalyst
`
`systems with Corning’s diesel particulate filters and substrates. The team studied
`
`how to design improved filters that still had characteristics that are important when
`
`placing a catalyst inside a wall flow filter, including the filter’s porosity, mean pore
`
`size, pore size distribution as well as the catalyst’s impact on the thermal shock
`
`resistance of the catalyzed product.
`
`7.
`
`I was awarded the Individual Outstanding Contributor Award by
`
`Corning Incorporated for my work in leading the development of the DuraTrap®
`
`AT products.
`
`8.
`
`Corning received the Corporate Technical Achievement Award, given
`
`by the American Ceramic Society to recognize Corning’s work in developing the
`
`DuraTrap® AT product.
`
`9.
`
`I am an inventor of at least 18 U.S. Patents, many of them directed to
`
`materials for wall flow filters or other substrates for diesel exhaust systems. I have
`
`also authored or presented at least 20 papers or presentations.
`
`10.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of filter
`
`3
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`design and development, my experience in working with others involved in those
`
`fields, and the state of the art as of the priority date of the ’709 patent. I have
`
`reviewed U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709, assigned to BASF Corporation and its file
`
`history. I have also reviewed at least the following patents and printed
`
`publications:
`
` S. Hashimoto, Y. Miyairi, T. Hamanaka, R. Matsubara, T. Harada and S.
`Miwa, SiC and Cordierite Diesel Particulate Filters Designed for Low
`Pressure Drop and Catalyzed, Uncatalyzed Systems, SAE Technical
`Paper 2002-01-0322.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497 (“Speronello”), assigned to BASF
`Corporation.
`
` The certified translation of Georg Hüthwohl, Bernd Maurer and Gennadi
`Zikoridse, The SCRT® System – A Combination Particle Filter with SCR
`Catalyst – Enables Both Particle and NOx Emission To Be Reduced
`Simultaneously in Commercial Vehicle Diesel Engines, Proceedings of
`the Dresden Motor Conference, held in May 1999.
`
` Yasutake Teraoka, Kazunori Kanada, Hiroshi Furukawa, Isamu
`Moriguchi, and Shuichi Kagawa, Simultaneous Catalytic Removal of
`Nitrogen Oxides and Soot by Copper-Loaded MFI Zeolites, 30 Chemistry
`Letters 604 (2001).
`
` Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto with Suresh
`T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002).
`
`11. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected
`
`portions of the cited references, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would view the references cited herein in their entirety, and in combination
`
`with other references cited herein or cited within the references themselves. The
`
`4
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed as being
`
`incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`12.
`
`I am not, and never was, an employee of Johnson Matthey Plc or any
`
`Johnson Matthey company. I have been engaged in the present matter to provide
`
`my independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ’709 patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my
`
`normal hourly compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter,
`
`and I will not receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this inter
`
`partes review of the ’709 patent.
`
`13. Based upon my experience in this area, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) of the ’709 patent at the time of the invention is a person who
`
`has obtained at least a BS or MS in a chemistry, chemical engineering, material
`
`science, or a related field and least three years of experience or training in
`
`researching, studying, designing, or manufacturing diesel exhaust treatment
`
`systems.”
`
`14. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have taught, participated in organizations, and
`
`worked closely with many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`5
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`Interpretations of the ’709 Patent Claims at Issue
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that regard, I understand
`
`that the best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in the context of the patent
`
`specification as understood by a POSITA. I further understand that the words of
`
`the claims should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent
`
`with the patent specification or the patent’s history of examination before the
`
`Patent Office. I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted
`
`as they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time of the invention was
`
`made (not today); because I do not know at what date the invention as claimed was
`
`made, I have used the earliest listed filing date of the ‘709 patent as the point in
`
`time for claim interpretation purposes. That date was August 5, 2003. I have been
`
`asked to provide my interpretation of the following terms and phrases of the ’709
`
`patent set forth below.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`Obviousness
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`6
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`obvious to a POSITA, taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`For purposes of my analysis above and because I know of no indication from the
`
`patent owner or others to the contrary, I have applied a date of August 5, 2003, as
`
`the date of invention in my obviousness analyses, although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even at an earlier time than August 5, 2003.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art,
`
`or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`7
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on
`
`hindsight in making the obviousness determination. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`Background
`
`18. A diesel engine produces carbon-based soot during normal operating
`
`conditions. Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) are incorporated into the exhaust
`
`stream of both heavy duty and light duty vehicles to trap this soot. The most
`
`common design for a DPF is a ceramic wall flow filter consisting of a plurality of
`
`parallel cells formed in the direction of flow which are plugged in a checkboard
`
`pattern on the exhaust gas inlet end. See Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control 217 (2002).
`
`
`
`19. The cells which are plugged on the inlet end are open on the exhaust
`
`gas outlet. Conversely, the cells which are open on the exhaust gas inlet end are
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`plugged on the exhaust gas outlet end. Therefore, the gas flow is forced through
`
`the cell wall of the DPF, depositing the soot on the cell wall of the inlet side while
`
`the exhaust gas passes through the porous wall and exits the outlet side. See id.
`
`
`
`20. During this soot collection, the soot builds a layer upon the cell wall,
`
`which results in an increase in pressure drop as the effective depth of the soot layer
`
`increases. As soot continues to accumulate on the filter, the backpressure will
`
`increase to an unacceptable level for normal operation. Before this occurs, the soot
`
`must be removed from the filter. This is typically accomplished by oxidizing or
`
`“burning” the soot, thereby “regenerating” the filter. Although the soot will
`
`spontaneously combust at very high temperatures, it was well known to include a
`
`soot oxidation catalyst on the filter in order to reduce the regeneration temperature
`
`of the filter. Known soot oxidation catalysts include a metal on a small particle
`
`support, such as platinum on alumina. See Heck at 201. It was also well known
`
`that NO2 in the exhaust stream could be used as an oxidant for soot oxidation. Id.
`
`It was also well known that a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), e.g., platinum
`
`supported on small particle alumina, could be positioned upstream of a DPF to
`
`9
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`increase the level of NO2 in the exhaust stream for the purpose of providing an
`
`oxidant for soot oxidation. Id.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`It was well known that the level of other undesirable components,
`
`such NOx, in a diesel exhaust gas could be reduced via heterogeneous catalysis.
`
`Many catalyst were known for these purposes, but they all require a substrate, such
`
`as wall-flow filter or a flow-through honeycomb monolith, as a support. For
`
`example, it was known that NOx could be catalytically treated using an selective
`
`catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst and/or a NOx adsorption catalyst (NAC) (also
`
`commonly referred to as a “NOx storage catalyst”) and that each of these types of
`
`catalyst are loaded on a substrate to be effective at reducing NOx. Known SCR
`
`catalysts included a metal loaded on a small particle support, such as copper loaded
`
`on a zeolite particle. Known NOx adsorbers include a metal on a small particle
`
`support, such as platinum on a barium oxide/alumina particle. These types of
`
`catalysts are applied to the walls of a substrate as a washcoat, either as an on-wall
`
`10
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`surface coating or as an in-wall coating. The rheology and the pH of these
`
`washcoats can be adjusted so that the same coating technique could be used to
`
`apply any of them washcoat to a wall-flow filter.
`
`22.
`
`In terms of filter design, there is little to no distinction between
`
`loading different catalyst composition washcoats (e.g., a metal-zeolite SCR
`
`catalyst washcoat or a NOx adsorber catalyst washcoat) in the walls of a wall-flow
`
`filter. In each case, it simply requires preparing a catalyst washcoat suitable for
`
`application to the filter, and selecting a filter having adequate pore size and
`
`porosity so that the washcoat can enter the pores of the filter wall. Because the
`
`catalyst washcoat is typically in the form of a slurry, techniques such as pressure or
`
`vacuum may be applied to increase the rate at which the washcoat permeates the
`
`filter walls. It was well known, and is common sense, that if the filter does not
`
`have sufficient porosity or pore size, the washcoat will not enter the filter walls or,
`
`if it does enter the porous wall, the pores will become clogged thus rendering the
`
`filter ineffective.
`
`23. One of skill in the art would have recognized that washcoats applied
`
`to a flow through, honeycomb substrate could have been applied to a wall-flow
`
`filter, given that the filter possessed adequate porosity, pore size, or other
`
`characteristics. Furthermore, a specific catalyst composition known to work when
`
`11
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`applied to a flow-through substrate would be expected to work in a similar manner
`
`when applied to a wall-flow filter.
`
`By 2002, The Auto Industry Believed That Meeting Impending Emission
`Standards Required Developing A Higher Porosity Filter That Could
`Accommodate A Catalyst Washcoat of 100 g/L to 125 g/L.
`
`24.
`
`In 2001 and 2002, the automotive industry needed new solutions for
`
`how to simultaneously reduce the emissions of NOx and particulate matter from
`
`diesel exhaust. Both NOx and particulate matter were the target of newly proposed
`
`emissions standards that were scheduled to become active in 2005. For example,
`
`the European Union’s Environment Council in 1998 agreed on new limits that
`
`“reduce[d] the emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particles in 2 stages,”
`
`with the first stage set to become active in 2005 and the second to become active in
`
`2008. 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. These
`
`new emissions standards, known as Euro IV and Euro V, sought aggressive
`
`reductions in the amount of each pollutant released into the atmosphere.
`
`25. The European Union diesel market was an important market for auto
`
`and truck manufacturers. The auto and truck manufacturers wanted to supply their
`
`12
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`vehicles into that important market, and to do so they had to meet the newly
`
`proposed emission standards for NOx and particulate matter.
`
`26.
`
` By 2002, the auto and truck manufacturers believed that meeting the
`
`Euro IV and Euro V emission standards, while still maintaining the compactness of
`
`a system designed for mobile applications, required putting a very high SCR
`
`washcoat loading into the walls of the filter. That is, to achieve the increase in
`
`NOx abatement, catalyst would have to be incorporated into the system without
`
`increasing the overall size of the exhaust gas treatment system. Auto and truck
`
`manufacturers responded to the proposed Euro IV and Euro V emission standards
`
`by requesting that Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”) suppliers develop filters with a
`
`higher porosity that could accommodate a very high catalyst washcoat. Based on
`
`the requests that Corning received, the auto and truck manufacturers were, as of at
`
`least 2002, trying to develop a filter that could accommodate a catalyst washcoat
`
`loading of between 100 g/L to 125 g/L. Accordingly, as of 2002, there was a move
`
`towards developing higher porosity filters, so that they could be combined with a
`
`high catalyst loading.
`
`27. Low porosity filters cannot accommodate a washcoat loading of
`
`between 100 g/L to 125 g/L. In a lower porosity filter, such a high washcoat
`
`loading would lead to unacceptably high backpressure, causing significant
`
`13
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`problems, including a reduction in engine power and increased fuel consumption,
`
`both unacceptable to vehicle manufacturers.
`
`28. My comments pertaining to a filter’s porosity and pore size are in
`
`reference to an uncoated filter’s porosity and pore size. This is distinct from the
`
`porosity and pore size of a coated filter. That is, a catalyst washcoat applied to the
`
`interior pores of a filter wall will decrease the actual pore size and porosity
`
`available for gas permeation. As more catalyst coating is incorporated into the
`
`porous wall, the pores start to become filled with the catalyst material, thus
`
`decreasing their effective diameter. A filter’s overall efficiency (i.e., the filter’s
`
`ability to capture particles of a certain size), requires a certain range of pore size
`
`and porosity. If the pore size and porosity are too large, the filter will not
`
`adequately trap the particulate matter. On the other hand, if the pore size and
`
`porosity are too small, the filter will produce unacceptably high backpressure.
`
`However, when a high porosity/large pore size filter is coated with a high amount
`
`of catalyst washcoat, the effective porosity and pore size can remain within the
`
`desirable ranges for treating soot in diesel exhaust gas because the catalyst material
`
`fills in the pores that would otherwise be too large for soot filtration.
`
`29. By 2002, the industry was actively working on developing a higher
`
`porosity filter in order to accommodate heavier catalyst washcoat loadings. To
`
`meet the impending Euro IV and Euro V emission standards, there was an
`
`14
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`immediate market need for a wall flow filter that could be loaded with 100 g/L to
`
`125 g/L or a catalyst washcoat without causing unacceptably high backpressure.
`
`30.
`
`In 2001 and 2002, the filter manufacturer industry began an intensive
`
`effort to develop a filter capable of being loaded with a catalyst washcoat while
`
`still achieving acceptable backpressure. During this time frame the filter industry
`
`was advancing filter technology on the basis that a porosity of 50% or higher was
`
`required to have a washcoat loaded in the wall of the filter to prevent trapped soot
`
`from causing unacceptably high backpressure.
`
`Hashimoto Teaches That Its High Porosity Filter Can Be Loaded With 100g/L
`of A Catalyst Washcoat and Still Achieve Acceptable Backpressure
`
`31. Hashimoto teaches a filter that can be successfully loaded with 100g/L
`
`(i.e., 1.64 g/in3) of a catalyst washcoat into a wall flow filter. Hashimoto teaches a
`
`“successful material development for low pressure-drop Cordierite and SiC [diesel
`
`particulate filters].” Hashimoto at p. 1. Specifically, the article states that “NGK
`
`Insulators, LTD has newly developed low pressure drop type Corderierite [diesel
`
`particulate filters]” and that “[m]aterial development has been completed which
`
`increases the porosity from the current mass production level.” Id. at p. 10.
`
`32.
`
`In particular, Hashimoto discloses a “newly developed” filter, DHC-
`
`611, with a 59% porosity and a 25 µm mean pore size. Id. In my opinion, this is
`
`the same filter used in every example of the ’709 patent, which describes a
`
`“[c]ordierite ceramic wall flow filter substrates (product name C611, NGK
`
`15
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`insulators, Ltd.) having … an average pore size of 25 microns and 60% wall
`
`porosity.” ’709 patent, Example 1. Further, both the DHC-611 filter taught in
`
`Hashimoto and the C611 filter described in the ’709 patent have a wall thickness of
`
`12 thousandths of an inch. See Hashimoto at Table 3 (DHC-611 filter has a wall
`
`thickness of “12 mil,” where “mil” is a unit of length that denotes a thousandth of
`
`an inch); ’709 patent, Example 1 (C611 filter has a wall thickness of 0.012 inches).
`
`33. Hashimoto teaches that “the porosity and mean pore size” of the
`
`filters “are critical” in solving the backpressure problem associated with a
`
`catalyzed filter. Id. at p. 13. If a higher porosity filter is used, such as the DHC-
`
`611 filter described in all the examples of the ’709 patent, Hashimoto teaches that
`
`the filter “can be coated with a significantly higher wash coat loading without
`
`adversely [a]ffecting pressure-drop” and describes its high porosity filter as “prime
`
`candidates” for future catalyzed filter systems. Id. Crucially, Hashimoto teaches
`
`that its catalyst “catalyst “wash coat … is applied inside the pores,” Hashimoto at
`
`12, just as the ’709 patent claims that its catalyst washcoat must “permeate” the
`
`walls of the filter. See, e.g., ’709 patent, claim 1.
`
`34. Hashimoto teaches that its newly developed high porosity filters
`
`exhibit “superior pressure-drop and filtration efficiency” characteristics.
`
`Hashimoto at p. 11. Hashimoto notes that not only had a pressure-drop equation
`
`been developed for the catalyzed high porosity filters, but that the equation was
`
`16
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`verified experimentally. “Preliminary pressure-drop measurements on the
`
`catalyzed DPF’s were conducted,” which included two filters coded DHC-611 and
`
`DHC-558, with “100g/L of a wash coating” in each, id. at p. 12. Measurements of
`
`the pressure drop as a function of the amount of soot loading were taken and
`
`recorded, see id. at Figure 21. The results, Hashimoto teaches, “indicate[] that
`
`high porosity [diesel particulate filter] material has an advantage for a catalyzed
`
`[diesel particulate filter] system.” Id. at p. 13.
`
`35. Hashimoto describes its high porosity filters as “prime candidates” for
`
`future catalyzed filter systems. Id. The results reported by Hashimoto were
`
`promising enough to warrant continuing to study other characteristics of the filters.
`
`See id. (“The pressure drop and filtration performance of the catalyzed DPF’s …
`
`be carefully investigated in the next phase of the development because the catalyst
`
`will change the pore size characteristics.”); id. (“The influence of porosity on the
`
`pressure-drop and filtration efficiency performance of catalyzed DPF will be
`
`conducted in the next development phase.”).
`
`36. Even without further testing, the Hashimoto would have been the
`
`leading choice to accommodate 100 g/L of any catalyst washcoat. Any issues that
`
`the filter could have had with respect to thermal stability or durability could have
`
`been resolved through the routine optimization of other filter characteristics—such
`
`as pore size distribution or wall thickness—that are not claimed by the ’709 patent.
`
`17
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`37. These other considerations would not have prevented one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art from pursuing the high porosity filter taught by Hashimoto. For
`
`example, even if the Hashimoto filters would have displayed some level of
`
`instability at the high temperatures needed to regenerate the filter, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have been able to make routine, well-known adjustments to
`
`the filter to increase its stability. One way to do so would have been to increase
`
`the cell wall thickness, while maintaining the filter’s mean pore size and porosity.
`
`This would increase the thermal mass of the filter, while maintaining the “key
`
`material characteristics” needed to solve the backpressure problem—the porosity
`
`and pore size. Hashimoto at p. 6. Similarly, the pore size distribution could have
`
`been varied to eliminate very large pores, which were known to lessen the
`
`durability of the filter. That is, a tighter pore size distribution would have reduced
`
`the number of pores that were much greater in size than 10-25 µm. Reducing the
`
`number of such very large pores would increase the durability of the filter. Neither
`
`of these characteristics, however, is claimed by the ’709 patent. The ’709 patent,
`
`instead, claims only those filter characteristics that Hashimoto taught were crucial
`
`for achieving acceptable backpressure.
`
`38. Furthermore, I would have expected the catalyzed Hashimoto filter to
`
`display even better filtration efficiency than that demonstrated in Figure 18 by the
`
`equivalent uncatalyzed filter. Adding a catalyst washcoat to an uncatalyzed filter
`
`18
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`generally improves the filtration efficiency of the filter. The Hashimoto article
`
`mentions a “next development phase” that would include studying the “influence
`
`of porosity on the pressure-drop and filtration efficiency performance” of the
`
`catalyzed filter. As discussed above, the catalyzed Hashimoto filter—loaded with
`
`100 g/L of a washcoat—displayed an advantageous pressure-drop profile. With
`
`respect to filtration efficiency, the uncatalyzed Hashimoto filter had exhibited
`
`“superior … filtration efficiency.” Hashimoto at p. 11. Specifically, Figure 18
`
`shows that the DHC-558 and DHC-611 filters display a filtration efficiency
`
`superior to that of an even higher porosity filter. After being loaded with 100 g/L
`
`of a catalyst washcoat, I would expect that the DHC-558 and DHC-611 filters
`
`would exhibit an even better filtration efficiency than that reported in Figure 18.
`
`Loading a catalyst washcoat into the filter would—as Hashimoto teaches—“further
`
`increase[] flow restriction,” id. at p. 1, which would cause increased filtration as
`
`well. Thus, while a “next development phase” may have been useful to determine
`
`the precise filtration efficiency of the catalyzed filter, a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have reasonably predicted that the catalyzed filter described in Hashimoto
`
`would have adequate filtration efficiency.
`
`39. As can be seen from the Acknowledgements section of Hashimoto,
`
`BASF's predecessor, Engelhard Corporation, was actually responsible for coating
`
`19
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`the DHC-611 and DHC-558 filters with 100g/L of a catalyst washcoat. Hashimoto
`
`at p. 13.
`
`Hashimoto Taught a Filter Structure That Would Have Been a “Prime
`Candidate” to Accommodate 100 g/L of Any Catalyst Washcoat Composition.
`
`40. The Hashimoto filter would have been a “prime candidate” for any
`
`filter substrate requiring a 100 g/L washcoat loading. Hashimoto neither specifies
`
`nor limits the types of catalyst washcoat (e.g., SCR, NAC, etc.) that can be applied
`
`to its high-porosity filter. As discussed above, different wall-flow filter design
`
`criteria are not required when selecting between a metal zeolite SCR washcoat, an
`
`NAC washcoat, or a soot oxidation catalyst washcoat. And it is my opinion that
`
`the DHC-611 filter could be used equally for metal zeolite SCR washcoats, NAC
`
`washcoats, or even other washcoats such as soot oxidation catalyst, without any
`
`modifications to the filter substrate. Thus, a person of ordinary skill could
`
`reasonable conclude from the teachings of Hashimoto that the DHC-611 or similar
`
`high-porosity filter could be used in conjunction with an SCR catalyst washcoat.
`
`More particularly, a person of ordinary skill reading Hashimoto would have readily
`
`recognized that a wall-flow filter having a porosity of 59% and a pore size of 25
`
`microns would be a prime candidate to be loaded with 100 g/L of a metal zeolite
`
`SCR catalyst washcoat.
`
`41. Claim 11 of the ’709 patent, which depends from claim 1, requires
`
`that the catalyst be coated on both the inlet and outlet side of the walls. This was a
`
`20
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,032,709
`
`common and well-known method used to prepare filters with a catalyst washcoat.
`
`Claim 15 reads:
`
`The catalyst article of claim 1, wherein the longitudinally
`extending walls have an inlet side and an opposing outlet side
`and SCR catalyst is coated on both the inlet and outlet sides of
`the walls.
`
`42.
`
`I understand this claim to be requiring a catalyzed filter prepared by a
`
`specific method—coating both the inlet and outlet channels of the filter with a
`
`catalyst washcoat. The ’709 patent describes exactly such a method. ’709 patent,
`
`Example 1. Claim 11, in my opinion, does not require that the coated catalyst
`
`remain only “on … the sides of the walls,” as that term is used in the dependent
`
`claim. Rather, claim 11 actually requires that the catalyst—originally coated “on”
`
`the wall—eventually permeate the walls of the filter. This becomes clear after
`
`reviewing claim 1, the independent claim form which claim 11 depends. Claim 1
`
`requires that the catalyst washcoat “permeat[e] the walls [of the filter] at a loading
`
`up to 2.4 g/in3.” Thus, reading this dependent claim in view of claim 1 makes clear
`
`that the dependent claim referring to the method of loading the filter with a
`
`catalyst, in a way that allows for the catalyst to eventually permeate the walls. The
`
`dependent claim does not, however, require that the claimed catalyst remain only
`
`on the walls of the filter.
`
`43. As of August 2003, the method of preparing a catalyzed filter recited
`
`by claim 11 was a well-known and common way to load a catalyst into a filter.
`
`21
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF US. PATENT No. 9,032,709
`
`44.
`
`Even if claim 11 is construed as requiring that the catalyst remain as a
`
`coating on both the inlet and outlet sides of the wall, such a configuration was well
`
`known in the art. For example, US. Patent No. 6,753,294 teaches a “wall-flow
`
`filter for an exhaust system of a combustion engine,” wherein the “walls carry [a]
`
`coating” of a catalytic material, including an SCR catalyst. ”294 patent, col. 2,
`
`lines 1—7; id. at col. 6, lines 9-41; see also id. at Figure 1 (a coating of an SCR
`
`catalyst, marked as 20, on both sides of the filter wall).
`
`45.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set expressed in this declaration. But my
`
`analysis may continue, and I may acquire additional information and/or attain
`
`supplemental insights that may result in added observations.
`
`46.
`
`I declare that all statements made in this declaration are of my own
`
`knowledge and are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; that these statements were made with the knowledge that
`
`willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`David L. Tennent
`
`22
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`David L. Tennent, Ph.D.
`4748 Clawson Drive
`Campbell, NY 14821
`dtennent@stny.rr.com
`607‐527‐4111
`
`Employment History
`Corning Incorporated, Corning, New York (1980‐2009)
`Director, Carbon Technologies Development
`Overall technical program responsibility for developing mercury traps in power plant exhaust gases.
`Sr. Project Manager – AT Development/Manager, Catalyst Interactions Group
`1. R&D Leader for the development and transfer of DuraTrap® AT. This team delivered
`DuraTrap® AT (Light Duty and Heavy Duty) and started the development
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
