throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent No. 9,039,982
`Original Issue Date: May 26, 2015
`Title: CATALYZED SCR FILTER AND EMISSION TREATMENT SYSTEM
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,039,982
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00613
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`IV.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ...........................................................1
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))....................................1
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)).............................................1
`Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .........................................................2
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ...........................................................2
`II.
`III. Requirements for IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.104)...................................................2
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ....................................2
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and
`Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)).........................................3
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3))..................................4
`The ’982 Patent...............................................................................................6
`Overview ..............................................................................................6
`Prosecution History..............................................................................7
`Prior Inter Partes Review ....................................................................8
`How Challenged Claims are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-
`(5)) ..................................................................................................................8
`Overview of the Prior Art Relied upon in this Petition........................8
`1.
`Muraki........................................................................................8
`2.
`Taoka........................................................................................10
`3.
`Joy ............................................................................................12
`4.
`Speronello ................................................................................13
`Ground 1: Claims 22, 23 and 27 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka ..............................................14
`Ground 2: Claims 24, 25, and 26 are obvious under 35 U.S. C.
`§103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka and further in view of
`Speronello...........................................................................................26
`Ground 3: Claims 1-5 and 14-17, and 19 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka and in further
`view of Joy. ........................................................................................33
`
`V.
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Ground 4: Claims 6-13, 18, and 20-21 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka and in further
`view of Joy and Speronello. ...............................................................49
`PURPORTED SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS..................................58
`VI.
`VII. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................60
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. Patent 9,039,982 to Patchett et al.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication H1-151706 to Muraki
`et al.
`
`Certified English Translation of JPAP H1-151706 to Muraki, et
`al. and associated translation Declaration
`
`Koebel et al., “Recent Advances in the Development of Urea-
`SCR for Automotive Applications,” SAE Paper No. 2001-01-
`3625
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication 2002-159859 to Taoka
`et al.
`
`Certified English Translation of JPAP 2002-159859 to Taoka et
`al. and associated translation Declaration
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0039550A1 to
`Schafer-Sindlinger et al.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`U.S. Patent 4,849,399 to Joy et al.
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Expert Declaration of Magdi Khair, Ph.D
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Excerpts from File History of U.S. Patent 9,039,982
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`U.S. Patent 5,516,497 to Speronello et al.
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`U.S. Patent 4,961,917 to Byrne
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Excerpt from Heck et al., “Catalytic Air Pollution Control:
`Commercial Technology” (2nd Ed., 2002)
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Petitioner Umicore
`
`AG & Co. KG (“Umicore” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-27 of U.S. 9,039,982 (“the ’982 patent”), to Joseph A.
`
`Patchett et al., which was filed September 26, 2014 and issued May 26, 2015.
`
`According to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) assignment records,
`
`the ’982 patent is currently assigned to BASF Corporation (“Patent Owner”).
`
`There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`
`one claim challenged in this Petition.
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner, Umicore, along with parent Umicore S.A. (also referred to as
`
`“Umicore NV”) and its wholly owned subsidiaries Umicore USA Inc., Umicore
`
`Autocat Canada Corp., and Umicore Autocat USA Inc. are real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’982 patent issued from U.S Application 14/497,454, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application 13/274,635 (now U.S. Patent 8,899,023), which is
`
`a continuation of U.S. Application 11/676,798 (now U. S. Patent 9,032,709), which
`
`is a divisional of U.S. Application 10/634,659 (now U.S. Patent 7,229,597).
`
`The ’597 patent, and U.S. Patent 7,902,107 from the same family, are each
`
`the subject of inter partes reexamination proceedings in the United States in Case
`
`Nos. 95/001,745 and 95/001,744, respectively.
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`The ’982, ’709, and ’023 patents are currently the subject of IPR petitions
`
`filed by Johnson Matthey Inc. in Cases IPR2015-01266, 01267, and 01265,
`
`respectively. The Johnson Matthey IPR on the ’982 Patent was instituted on
`
`December 4, 2015. The primary prior art reference at issue in this petition –
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication H1-151706 to Muraki et al. – was not
`
`identified ore relied upon in the Johnson Matthey IPR.
`
`Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel: Elizabeth Gardner (Reg. No. 36,519)
`
`Back-up Counsel: Richard L. DeLucia (Reg. No. 28,839)
`
`Electronic Service information: egardner@orrick.com; rdelucia@orrick.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, 51 West 52nd Street,
`
`New York, NY 10019; Telephone: 212-506-5000 Facsimile: 212-506-5151
`
`II.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The US PTO is authorized to charge the filing fee and any other fees
`
`incurred by Petitioner to the deposit account of Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe
`
`LLP: 15-0665.
`
`III. Requirements for IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’982 patent (Exhibit 1001) is available for IPR
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and
`Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claims 1-27 of the
`
`’982 patent. Each claim should be found unpatentable and cancelled because the
`
`patent claims a combination of known elements from the prior art. The claims are
`
`directed to the combination of a wall flow filter for removing particulate matter
`
`from a diesel exhaust stream in combination with an SCR catalyst to reduce NOx
`
`in the diesel exhaust stream. This petition explains the reasons why the claims are
`
`unpatentable and includes detailed claim charts as well as additional explanation
`
`and support set forth in the attached Declaration of Magdi Khair, Ph.D (Ex 1009).
`
`The ’982 patent was filed as U.S. App. 14/497,454 and claims priority to
`
`U.S. App. 10/634,659, filed August 5, 2003, now U.S. Patent 7,229,597. For this
`
`petition, it is assumed that the ’982 patent’s effective filing date is August 5, 2003.
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`(1) Japanese Patent
`
`Application Publication H1-151706 to Muraki et al., published June 14, 1989
`
`(“Muraki,” Exhibit 1002) and its certified English translation and declaration
`
`attesting to the accuracy of the translation (Exhibit 1003); (2) Japanese Patent
`
`Application Publication 2002-159859 to Taoka et al., published June 4, 2002
`
`(“Taoka,” Exhibit 1005) and its certified English translation and declaration
`
`attesting to the accuracy of the translation (Exhibit 1006); (3) U.S. Patent
`
`4,849,399 to Joy et al., issued July 18, 1989 (Exhibit 1008); (4) U.S. Patent
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`5,516,497 to Speronello et al., issued May 14, 1996 (Exhibit 1011). Muraki,
`
`Taoka, Joy, and Speronello are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Petitioner requests that claims 1 - 27 be cancelled on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 22, 23 and 27 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`
`Muraki in view of Taoka
`
`Ground 2: Claims 24, 25, and 26 are obvious under 35 U.S. C. §103(a)
`
`over Muraki in view of Taoka and further in view of Speronello.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1 - 5, 14 - 17, and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka and in further view of Joy.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 6 - 13, 18 and 20-21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka and in further view of Joy and Speronello.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3))
`
`A claim term subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Terms are to be given their
`
`plain meaning unless it is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
`
`319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`The claims of the ’982 patent require a “washcoat of SCR catalyst
`
`composition” that “permeates” or is “permeating” the walls of the claimed
`
`monolith. According to the ’982 patent, “the term ‘permeate’ means that the
`
`catalyst composition is dispersed throughout the wall of the substrate.” (Ex 1001,
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`’982 patent at 10:5-8.) While Petitioner does not concede this term satisfies the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C §112, this definition is at least consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation and has thus been applied in this petition.
`
`The claims are directed to a catalyst article consisting essentially of a wall
`
`flow monolith and a catalytic material. The claims each variously require a “wall
`
`flow monolith having a porosity of” from either “50% to 60%” or “55% to 60%”
`
`and “an average pore size of from 10 to 25 microns” that contains the catalytic
`
`material in the form of a slurry-loaded washcoat that permeates the walls of the
`
`monolith. Petitioner contends that these “porosity” and “average pore size” limits
`
`are indefinite because it is not clear whether they refer to a coated or uncoated
`
`“wall flow monolith.” The ’982 patent adds to this confusion by alternatively
`
`referring to both coated and uncoated monoliths as having thee porosities and pore
`
`sizes. (Ex 1001, ’982 Patent, compare 4:44-51 with 5:56-58.) Because
`
`indefiniteness cannot be raised as part of this proceeding, and because the two
`
`possible interpretations overlap in scope, with neither being necessarily broader, it
`
`is proposed that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “wall flow monolith
`
`[have] a porosity of from 50% to 60% and an average pore size of from 10 to 25
`
`microns” limitation embraces both coated and uncoated monoliths that possess
`
`these characteristics. (See Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶ 42-44.)
`
`Beyond those discussed above, the terms of the ’982 patent should be
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`IV. The ’982 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`The ’982 patent generally relates to a catalyst article for simultaneously
`
`remediating the nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and gaseous
`
`hydrocarbons present in diesel engine exhaust streams. (Ex. 1001, ’982 patent,
`
`Abstract.) The patent discloses an emission treatment system having an oxidation
`
`catalyst upstream of a soot filter coated with a material effective in the selective
`
`catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx by a reductant, such as ammonia (Id. at 1:18-21).
`
`However, the claims are all limited to a “catalyst article consisting essentially of a
`
`wall flow monolith and a catalytic material” and do not claim the other aspects of
`
`the treatment system.
`
`The ’982 patent acknowledges that the various components of the claimed
`
`catalyst article were already known in the prior art.
`
`Particulate filters: “One key aftertreatment technology in use for high
`
`particulate matter reduction is the diesel particulate filter.” (Id. at 2:13-21.) The
`
`patent goes on to explain that “ceramic wall flow filters … receive the most
`
`attention” in the prior art and “are capable of removing over 90% of the particulate
`
`material from diesel exhaust.” (Id.)
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`SCR Catalyst: “A proven NOx abatement technology applied to stationary
`
`sources with lean exhaust conditions is Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). In
`
`this process, NOx is reduced with ammonia (NH3) to nitrogen (N2) over a catalyst
`
`typically composed of base metals. The technology is capable of NOx reduction
`
`greater than 90%, and thus it represents one of the best approaches for achieving
`
`aggressive NOx reduction goals.” (Id. at 2:41-53.)
`
`The subject matter of the ’982 patent is purportedly different from this
`
`admitted prior art in that it integrates the two known components, the nitrogen
`
`oxide reducing catalyst and the particulate filtering substrate. (See id. at 2:54-64.)
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application leading to the ’982 patent was filed on September 26, 2014.
`
`(Ex. 1010, ’982 Patent Prosecution History at 3). No prior art rejections were
`
`made. Instead, the Examiner entered double patenting rejections in Office Actions
`
`dated December 16, 2014 and March 12, 2015 in view of multiple members of the
`
`same patent family. (Id. at 59 and 70-73.) With respect to the rejection based on
`
`Application 14/454,931, BASF argued that the SCR catalyst composition of that
`
`application comprised “one or more of a copper and iron component,” while the
`
`catalyst composition of the pending application comprised the copper component
`
`only. (Id. at 66.) BASF overcame the other double patenting rejections by filing
`
`terminal disclaimers. (See Id at 80.) The claims were allowed on May 26, 2015.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`The prior art references relied on in this petition were not considered during
`
`prosecution of the claims in the application leading to the ’982 patent.
`
`Prior Inter Partes Review
`On December 4, 2015, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-
`
`27 of the ’982 patent. (See IPR 2015-01266, Paper 8.) Muraki, Taoka and Joy,
`
`were not raised by Johnson Matthey or considered by the PTAB.
`
`V.
`
`How Challenged Claims are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5))
`
`Overview of the Prior Art Relied upon in this Petition
`
`All of the features required by the claims of the ’982 patent were known in
`
`the prior art as of the patent’s effective filing date. A summary of the art follows.
`
`1. Muraki
`
`Muraki published in 1989 and discloses a combined catalyst and filter for
`
`simultaneously removing combustible fine particles and nitrogen oxide from
`
`exhaust gases while also providing a soot filter. (See Ex. 1003, Muraki.)
`
`According to Muraki, the exhaust gas stream emitted by an engine includes, among
`
`other things, “combustible fine particles such as carbon” and “nitrogen oxides
`
`(NOx).” (Id. at 3:9-11, 37-38.) While “conventional technology demonstrates an
`
`effect in terms of removing combustible fine particles and nitrogen oxides on their
`
`own, it is not possible to remove both combustible fine particles and nitrogen
`
`oxides at the same time.” (Id. at 4:5-9.) This conventional technology creates a
`
`problem, according to Muraki, because it “require[s] two devices, namely a filter
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`and a catalytic converter” and is inconsistent with the desire to use “compact and
`
`lightweight components” in a vehicle. (Id. at 4:18-22.)
`
`Muraki explains that its “invention has been devised in view of these
`
`problems, and the aim thereof lies in providing a catalyst which can simultaneously
`
`remove combustible fine particles and nitrogen oxides in exhaust gas, and also in
`
`providing a filter.” (Id. at 4:24-28.) To accomplish this, Muraki discloses “a
`
`catalyst for removing combustible fine particles and nitrogen oxides” that is
`
`“formed by supporting a catalyst component comprising copper and zeolite on a
`
`support.” (Id. at 4:31-35.) Copper can be incorporated into the zeolite via ion-
`
`exchange. And, “the ion-exchange rate is preferably between 50% and 100%.”
`
`(Id. at 5:9-22.) Different materials, including cordierite, can be used as a substrate.
`
`(Id. at 5:24-32.)
`
`The substrate has a “large number of passages partitioned by filter walls.”
`
`(Id. at 6:18-22.) There are “admission passages closed at the outflow side and
`
`exhaust passages closed at the inflow side.” (Id. at 6:24-25) Further, the “filter
`
`wall has through-holes for trapping combustible fine particles in the exhaust gas
`
`when said exhaust gas passes from the inflow passages to the exhaust passages….”
`
`(Id. at 6:27-30.) The filter has an average pore size in the range of 5-50 µm. (Id. at
`
`7:24-35.) This type of substrate is referred to as a wall flow substrate since
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`exhaust gas is forced to flow through the filter walls as generally shown in the
`
`following figure in Muraki:
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`Muraki explains that the “catalyst component comprising copper and zeolite
`
`is supported in the filter walls.” (Id. at 6:30-32.) The catalyst not only reduces
`
`nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas stream, but also allows the “combustible fine
`
`particles” to “be combusted and removed at a low temperature….” (Id. at 8:13-
`
`16.) This, eliminates the need for a separate heater to remove particle buildup. (Id.
`
`at 8:16-19.) Muraki includes various working examples showing that its catalyst-
`
`loaded wall flow filter is able to successfully and simultaneously reduce nitrogen
`
`oxides and remove particulate matter from diesel exhaust. (See id. at 10:24-17:24.)
`
`2.
`
`Taoka
`
`Taoka relates to a “catalyst for exhaust gas purification.” (Ex. 1006, Taoka
`
`at ¶ [0001].) The catalyst is loaded on to a “catalyst carrying filter 100” that is
`
`“formed in a honeycomb shape” with “alternately sealed” cells or passageways.
`
`(Id. at ¶ [0002].) Accordingly, Taoka discloses a catalyst coated wall-flow filter.
`
`The “catalyst carrying filter 100 collects particulates (PM: black sooty particulate)
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`deposited in the interior, and purifies exhaust gas through oxidation of PM, HC and
`
`CO, and by reducing NOx.” (Id.) “[P]orous silicon carbide” can be used as carrier
`
`substrate material. Id. at ¶ [0003].)
`
`Taoka explains that “since both ends of the … carrier are alternately sealed
`
`in a checkered pattern with a sealing body, exhaust gas that penetrated from one
`
`end of the ceramic carrier, between the time it exits from the other end, will
`
`certainly pass through the cell wall.” (Id. at ¶ [0030].)
`
`(Id.) And, “since the …
`
`carrier is a honeycomb structure having a plurality of through holes divided by cell
`
`walls, the area that can make the exhaust gas contact the catalyst increases.” (Id. at
`
`¶ [0029].) This “improve[s] the purification efficiency of” the catalyst. (Id.)
`
`Taoka provides details regarding the physical characteristics of preferred
`
`wall flow substrates. In particular, “[t]he pores of the porous cell wall 12 are
`
`within an average pore diameter range of 5 µm to 250 µm…. [D]iesel particulate
`
`can be reliably collected by setting the average pore diameter … within such
`
`range.” (Id.at ¶ [0034].) However, “[w]hen the average pore diameter of the cell
`
`wall 12 is less than 5 µm, the pressure loss that occurs when exhaust gas passes
`
`through the cell wall 12 becomes excessively large which may cause the engine to
`
`stop. Further, when the average pore diameter exceeds 250 µm, fine particulate
`
`can no longer be collected efficiently.” (Id.)
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Next, “the porosity of the porous cell wall 12 in the ceramic carrier 15 is set
`
`to 40-60%,” or more preferably “within a range of 50-60%.” (Id. at ¶ [0035].)
`
`Taoka explains that “[w]hen porosity is less than 40%, the pressure loss that occurs
`
`when exhaust gas passes through the cell wall 12 becomes excessively large which
`
`may cause the engine to stop. Further, when porosity exceeds 60%, fine
`
`particulate can no longer be collected efficiently” and “it becomes easy for a crack
`
`to develop … due to deteriorated mechanical strength.” (Id.) Thus, an “average
`
`pore diameter … between 5 µm and 250 µm” and a “porosity [between] 40-60%”
`
`reduces pressure lose, improves mechanical strength, and efficiently collects
`
`particulate matter. (Id. at ¶ [0036].)
`
`3.
`
`Joy
`
`Joy relates to a “catalytic composite and process for reducing the ignition
`
`temperature of diesel soot.” (Ex. 1008, Joy at Abstract.) Joy’s “catalytic
`
`composite consists essentially of a diesel soot filter” that can be a “ceramic wall
`
`flow filter” that has “deposited thereon” a catalytic material. (Id. at 4:31-41.)
`
`According to Joy, “[t]he desired ceramic … diesel soot filter can be washcoated
`
`using a slurry or dispersion” that contains the catalytic material. (Id. at 4:56-58.)
`
`Joy explains that “[t]he preparation of slurries and methods of washcoating a filter
`
`element with a slurry are well known in the art.” (Id. at 4:58-60.) Joy specifies the
`
`catalyst loading levels that should be employed. While “[t]he quantity of washcoat
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`to be applied to a filter element is less critical with regard to the lower limit,” a
`
`“minimum amount will be when the filter element contains about 0.2 grams of
`
`washcoat per cubic inch of filter volume.” (Id. at 4:65-5:2.) “The upper range is
`
`limited by the maximum permissible backpressure which the filter exerts on a
`
`diesel engine.” (Id. at 5:2-4.) These concerns lead to a “preferred” loading range
`
`of “from about 0.8 g/in3 to about 2.5 g/in3.” (Id. at 5:5-7.)
`
`4.
`
`Speronello
`
`Speronello generally relates to “metal-promoted zeolite catalysts and a
`
`method for the catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides with ammonia using
`
`catalysts, including carrying out such catalytic reduction selectively in the presence
`
`of oxygen.” (Ex. 1011, Speronello at 1:11-15.) Speronello’s catalyst is staged,
`
`with an upstream “first zone catalyst [that] favors the selective catalytic reduction
`
`of nitrogen oxides with ammonia” and a “second” downstream “zone [that] favors
`
`the oxidation of (excess or residual) ammonia to nitrogen.” (Id. at 2:66-3:4.)
`
`Speronello discusses preferred metal loading levels: the first zone on the
`
`substrate should include from 0.1 to 1% metal, while the second zone on the
`
`substrate should include 1% to 30%, or more preferably 2% to 5% metal. (See id.
`
`at 3:27-35.) “[I]ron or copper” can be employed. (See id. at 5:34-51.) Use of
`
`these loading levels allows the catalyst zones to respectively engage in SCR to
`
`reduce nitrogen oxides and then oxidize any excess ammonia. (See id.)
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Speronello also identifies several preferred zeolites, including “Beta zeolites,
`
`ultrastable Y (‘USY’) zeolites and ZSM-20 zeolites.” (Id. at 6:56-59.) These are
`
`preferred because they have “an average pore size of about 7 Angstroms or more”
`
`and are “resistant to sulfur poisoning.” (Id. at 6:34-49.) “The zeolite materials
`
`employed should have a silica to alumina molecular ratio greater than 10 in order
`
`to enhance their resistance to acidic conditions.” (Id. at 6:25-28.) Speronello’s
`
`zeolites are able to withstand temperatures up to about 600 oC. (Id. at 6:17-20.)
`
`Ground 1: Claims 22, 23 and 27 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over Muraki in view of Taoka
`
`As of August 2003, claims 22, 23 and 27 would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. 1 The subject matter set forth in those claims is nothing
`
`more than the combination of a known wall flow filter and a known SCR catalyst
`
`1 For purposes of this Petition, one of ordinary skill in the art would hold at least a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or
`
`a related discipline, and have a few years of work experience with diesel exhaust
`
`treatment systems, such that they have knowledge of the various aspects of these
`
`systems, including the types of catalytic materials and filters used. Additional
`
`years of work experience with diesel exhaust treatment systems can substitute for a
`
`more advanced educational degree. (See Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 54-56.)
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`washcoat.
`
`As discussed in the prior art summary above, Muraki discloses a wall flow
`
`filter that is slurry loaded with a zeolite. Copper is then incorporated into the
`
`zeolite via ion-exchange. Just as required by the ’982 patent, Muraki explains that
`
`this catalyst loaded filter is able to simultaneously remove particulate matter and
`
`reduce nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas stream emitted by a diesel engine.
`
`Muraki also employs the average pore size required by the ’982 patent. While
`
`Muraki does not specifically reference the porosity of its substrate, Taoka explains
`
`that substrates with the claimed porosity should be used to achieve adequate
`
`filtering while avoiding backpressure and mechanical strength issues.
`
`Independent claim 22 is directed to a catalyst article “consisting essentially
`
`of a wall flow monolith and a catalytic material.” Muraki describes its invention
`
`as relating to a catalyst for “simultaneously removing nitrogen oxides and
`
`combustible fine particles such as carbon contained in exhaust gas from an internal
`
`combustion engine . . . and also relates to a filter employing said catalyst.” (Ex.
`
`1003, Muraki at 3:1-6; see also 3:36-4:2; Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 96-97.)
`
`Claim 22 specifies that the “wall flow monolith has a plurality of
`
`longitudinally extending passages formed by longitudinally extending walls
`
`bounding and defining said passages, wherein the passages comprise inlet passages
`
`having an open inlet end and a closed outlet end, and outlet passages having a
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`closed inlet end and an open outlet end.” Claim 22 additionally requires that the
`
`“wall flow monolith [have] a porosity of from 50% to 60% and an average pore
`
`size of from 10 to 25 microns.” Muraki’s system employs the claimed type of wall
`
`flow monolith. (Ex. 1003, Muraki at 5:27-32; 6:17-30; see also 10:34-11:15; Figs.
`
`1-3.) Use of this type of monolith, according to Muraki, “improve[s] contact with
`
`exhaust gas and … enhance[s] the effect of removing combustible fine particles
`
`and nitrogen oxides.” (Id. at 5:27-32.) Moreover, Muraki explains that its
`
`monolith has an average pore size in the range of “5μm -50μm.” (Id. at 7:28-35;
`
`see also Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 98-104.) While the range of average pore sizes
`
`required by the claims is somewhat narrower than that set forth in Muraki, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that use of pore sizes in the middle
`
`of Muraki’s range would be more likely to result in an acceptable balance of
`
`filtering and clog avoidance. (See Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶ 102.) Moreover,
`
`selection of any particular pore size is nothing more than a routine design choice.
`
`(See id. at ¶ 103.) While Muraki does not expressly identify the monolith’s
`
`porosity, Taoka teaches that a catalyst coated wall flow filter should preferably
`
`have a porosity in the range of 50-60% to achieve adequate filtration performance
`
`while avoiding backpressure and mechanical strength issues. (See Ex. 1006, Taoka
`
`at ¶¶ [0035]-[0036].)
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Claim 22 specifies that the wall flow monolith contains a catalytic material
`
`which “comprises a washcoat of SCR catalyst composition including a slurry-
`
`loaded washcoat of a zeolite and base metal selected from copper, the washcoat
`
`permeating the walls.” This is disclosed by Muraki. In particular, Muraki employs
`
`a “catalyst component comprising copper and zeolite” that “is supported in the
`
`filter walls.” (Ex. 1003, Muraki at 6:30-32; see also 2:6-35; 4:32-35; 7:37-38.)
`
`Further, this catalytic material is applied by using a “wash-coat slurry” of zeolite
`
`and then incorporating copper via ion exchange. (Id. at 12:1-18 see also Ex. 1009,
`
`Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 105-106.)
`
`Finally, claim 22 specifies that the wall flow monolith has “integrated, NOx
`
`and particulate removal efficiency in which presence of the catalytic material in the
`
`wall flow monolith catalyzes the oxidation of soot.” This is disclosed by Muraki
`
`which relates to “a catalyst for simultaneously removing nitrogen oxides and
`
`combustible fine particles such as carbon contained in exhaust gas.” (Ex. 1003,
`
`Muraki at 3:1-6; see also 4:24-28; 9:33-10:4; 13:20-28.) Muraki also explains that
`
`“the combustible fine particles may be combusted and removed at a low
`
`temperature because of the presence of the Cu and the zeolite.” (Id. at 8:13-16, 22-
`
`35; see also Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶107-108.)
`
`Dependent claim 23 includes all the limitation of claim 22 and further
`
`requires that “the SCR catalyst composition has a thermal resistance to degradation
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`at a temperatures greater than 650 ºC.” Muraki states that “the catalyst according
`
`to the present invention is preferably used at 200 oC to 800 oC.” (Id. at 6:12-14; see
`
`also Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 110-112.) Further, it was generally known in the
`
`art that catalytic materials for treating diesel exhaust should be able to withstand
`
`such temperatures (Ex. 1004, Koebel at 7; see also Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶ 113.)
`
`Dependent claim 27 includes all the limitation of claim 22 and further
`
`requires that “the wall flow monolith is effective to remove soot by deposition of
`
`particulate matter on the wall flow monolith and the catalyst material contains a
`
`component to promote the combustion of the soot in the absence of a fine pore path
`
`layer on the wall of the wall flow monolith.” This is also described by Muraki
`
`which states that “[i]t should be noted that in the first and second inventions, the
`
`combustible fine particles may be combusted and removed at a low temperature
`
`because of the presence of the Cu and the zeolite….” (Ex. 1003, Muraki at 8:13-
`
`16, 22-35; see also Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 115-117.)
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art in August of 2003 would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of Muraki with the Taoka disclosure to arrive
`
`at a catalyst coated filter for the simultaneous reduction of NOx with a filter
`
`substrate that also provides for the combustion of fine particulate soot, as claimed
`
`in claims 22, 23 and 27 of the ’982 patent. Muraki and Taoka are in the same
`
`technical field, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have both references
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`readily available to them. (See Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶131) Further, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time would have been motivated by legislation to
`
`reduce both particulates and NOx. See, e.g. Koebel, stating “[f]orthcoming
`
`European and U.S. emission legislation for diesel vehicles calls for a significant
`
`reduction of both particles and NOx.” (Ex. 1004, Koebel at 1.) These increasingly
`
`stringent environmental regulations would strongly motivate one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to consider the use of and prefer systems, like that of Muraki, able to
`
`remove both particulate matter and NOx from diesel engine exhaust. (Ex. 1009,
`
`Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 121-122.) Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would also
`
`prefer an exhaust gas treatment system to include fewer catalysts, since this would
`
`serve to reduce both cost and system bulk. (Id. at ¶ 123.) Muraki’s system
`
`combines particulate filtering and NOx removal capabilities on a single substrate,
`
`and thus would be viewed as particularly preferable. (Id.)
`
`Muraki expressly provides for the use of a “porous” substrate for supporting
`
`the catalyst (Ex. 1003, Muraki at 5:24-26), though Muraki does not expressly
`
`reference the porosity of its wall flow filters. However, by 2002, it was well
`
`known that porosities in the range of 50-60% achieve adequate filtration while
`
`avoiding backpressure and mechanical strength problems. (See Ex. 1006, Taoka at
`
`¶¶ [0035]-[0036]; see also Ex. 1009, Khair Dec. at ¶¶ 125-126.) This particular
`
`poro

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket